Oral
Answers to
Questions

HEALTH

The Secretary of State was asked—

Organ Donation

Glyn Davies: What the evidential basis is for his Department’s proposals on presumed consent for organ donation.

Jackie Doyle-Price: An impact assessment has been published as part of the Government’s public consultation, and it suggests that moving towards an opt-out system for organ donation, as part of a wider communication and logistical package, can be associated with higher donation rates. The Government have invited submissions of further evidence, which we will consider carefully before responding. We have already received in excess of 2,000 responses since the consultation started last week.

Glyn Davies: As someone with a long-standing passion to increase the number of organs available for donation, I am encouraged by the Minister’s response. Does she think that the shift from the current voluntary system to one where the state makes decisions based on presumed consent had an impact on the reduction in the number of live donors over the past three years?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I part with my hon. Friend on his point about the state taking control through presumed consent. We are talking about a register from which people could physically opt out, rather than opt in. The issues about end-of-life consent will continue to be the same, and the next of kin will be a full consultee. As for live donation, the issues are complex, but one reason why we are seeing a decline is that the waiting lists for receiving an organ are coming down, which is reducing the need for live donors. We should keep a watching brief on that.

Dan Jarvis: Part of the evidence base relates to the fact that hundreds of people die each year because we do not have enough organ donors, so I thank the Minister for her work in bringing forward this consultation. What more can be done to widen public participation?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support and for his hard work in this space. Through him, I can perhaps thank the Daily Mirror for its public displays of education through the Max’s law campaign, but we all need to make an effort. There is no doubt that the public are hugely in favour of donation and want to be able to support it as best they can, but the matter has  rather fallen from public consciousness. Everyone in the House has an opportunity to raise public awareness, get involved in the consultation and have a real debate, because we need to ensure that people are willing to donate their organs so that we can save more lives.

James Gray: There are already 24 million people on the voluntary organ donation register, which is a significant proportion of Great Britain’s population. None the less, three people a day die because appropriate organs are not available for transplant, and it is vital to do something about that. Is my hon. Friend aware of a particular difficulty with members of black and minority ethnic populations being more reluctant to join the register than others? Is there a way to encourage them to take part in the voluntary scheme?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend highlights one of the biggest challenges we face. There is no doubt that the rate of organ donation is much lower among black and minority ethnic populations, and yet they are more inclined to suffer from diseases that require a donated organ, so we are keen to work on that. Only this week, I met organisations connected with the black and Asian community to discuss how we can communicate, to get the right messages through right messengers, to encourage people to join the register.

Jim Shannon: I fully support the organ donation opt-out, because it will increase the pool of organ donors. Will the Minister comment on whether the recent statistics from the Welsh department of health show an increase in the provision of organs due to presumed consent? In other words, has it been a success so far?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support. The figures from Wales come at an early stage, but the system that we are looking to introduce has much in common with that in Spain. The issue is not so much about the register moving towards an opt-out system, but the wraparound care that goes with it, such as the specialist nurses who speak with relatives when they are going through the trauma of losing a loved one, and the public debate that raises awareness. Taken together, they are what will lead to more organs becoming available.

Group B Streptococcus

Melanie Onn: What steps he is taking to ensure that information on group B streptococcus is available to NHS patients.

Steve Brine: As the Secretary of State has set out, our ambition is for the NHS to be the safest place in the world to give birth. Information on prevention and the implications of a group B streptococcus infection are available on the NHS Choices website. Just today, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published a new patient information leaflet that, from the new year, will be given to all pregnant women for the first time. Because it is Christmas, I have a copy here for the hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I see she has one, too.

Melanie Onn: I thank the Minister—he has anticipated my question. I reassert that, on average, two babies die each month from complications relating to group B strep. Awareness of the effects of that infection is incredibly low. Will the Minister meet me and Group B Strep Support to discuss how we can get this leaflet to mums-to-be at the earliest possible stage?

Steve Brine: I know this is a subject about which the hon. Lady cares greatly. I would be very happy to meet her and to bring together the people I work with from Public Health England to see how we can make the best of this new leaflet and make sure it is the best and most important Christmas present.

Mims Davies: I welcome the Government’s focus on reducing stillbirths, and I welcome the maternity safety strategy. I particularly welcome this focus on group B strep. Will the Minister outline how he is working locally with hospitals such as Southampton to make sure they are aware of this new focus?

Steve Brine: I thank my parliamentary neighbour for that question. Public Health England is one of the most effective arm’s length bodies with which we work in Government, and it will be working with commissioners and trusts across our country to make sure that this new information is out there with pregnant mums and the most at-risk groups. Members of Parliament have an important role to play with local commissioners and trusts, and I know my hon. Friend will play her part in that.

GP Services

Greg Knight: What steps he is taking to increase the capacity and availability of GP services.

Jeremy Hunt: General practice remains under sustained pressure, which is why we remain committed to increasing the number of doctors working in general practice by 5,000, however challenging that might be.

Greg Knight: Does my right hon. Friend not think it is unfortunate that, at a time when GP services are being sustained, local hospital services in some areas are being reduced? Does he share my concern that some NHS trust managers and clinical commissioning groups seem hellbent on removing valued local services from our smaller hospitals, such as at Driffield and at Bridlington in my constituency?

Jeremy Hunt: My right hon. Friend has talked to me extensively about this in private, and I fully understand his concerns. The Government are increasing funding to the NHS, which involves extra money going both to out-of-hospital services, such as general practice, and to hospital services. We expect all areas of the country to find sensible ways for those two sectors to work together.

Paul Williams: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Has the Secretary of State seen the recent report of the Royal College of General Practitioners, “Destination GP,” on how to inspire medical students to pursue a career in general practice? Will he consider the report’s recommendations to help better support medical student placements in general practice?

Jeremy Hunt: I will absolutely consider the sensible recommendations of that report. People on both sides of the House, such as the hon. Gentleman, who were GPs before being elected do a fantastic job of flying the flag for general practice. We are making some progress. Some 3,157 medical school students have gone into general practice as a specialty—the most ever—but there is lots more work to do.

Maria Miller: I very much welcome the additional funding this Government have put into the NHS, but constituents tell me that they can better manage chronic conditions and illnesses if they have consistent care from general practitioners, which is something they find difficult to access in some surgeries in my constituency because of problems with recruitment and retention. What is the Secretary of State doing with his team to make sure we can lessen that problem in future?

Jeremy Hunt: I totally agree with my right hon. Friend. One of the best things about the NHS is that people have a GP who knows them and their family. There is a lot of evidence that that is the best way to manage people with long-term conditions, as she rightly says. The truth is that, for a very long time, successive Governments have not invested as much as they should in general practice. We are trying to put that right, and part of that is flying the flag for what an exciting career general practice is. It is the one part of medicine where doctors have an ongoing relationship with patients and their families over their whole lives, which is very motivating.

Thangam Debbonaire: The capacity and availability of at least one GP surgery in my constituency are both profoundly affected by the relationship with NHS Property Services—incomplete maintenance jobs and vastly increased rent are problems. Will the Secretary of State meet me and the practice manager of that GP surgery to discuss this?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand the concerns that the hon. Lady raises; they have been raised by a number of Members. There are historical issues on the levels of rent charged by NHS Property Services, which frankly are not fair given the variation in charges to different GP practices across the country. I will be happy to look carefully into the issues she raises.

Julie Cooper: The NHS has lost 1,300 full-time GP equivalents in the past two years and 200 GP partners during the same period. Given that 20% of the GP workforce is aged over 60, there is clearly a retirement time-bomb looming. What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to address the growing workforce crisis in general practice? His efforts so far have failed and patients are waiting longer than ever for a surgery appointment.

Jeremy Hunt: I would respectfully say that the figures the hon. Lady has pointed out do not take account of locum doctors. None the less, there is a big problem and she is right to draw it to the attention of the House.  What are we doing? I think there are two things. First, we need to encourage more medical school graduates to go into general practice as a specialty, and our objective is that half of all medical school graduates should choose general practice as their specialty. We are making good progress on that. [Interruption.] As she is saying to me, rightly, retention is also extremely important. That is why we are putting in place a number of programmes that will make it easier for GPs who want to work for a limited period of time to work flexibly and potentially for people who have family responsibilities to work from home. We hope that those programmes will also make a difference.

NHS Funding Trends

Peter Grant: What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on trends in the level of funding for the NHS.

Jeremy Hunt: We had productive discussions with the Chancellor  of the Exchequer ahead of the Budget, which led to  a £2.8 billion increase in NHS revenue funding and a £3.5 billion increase in NHS capital funding.

Peter Grant: Given that NHS trusts in England are facing a cumulative budget shortfall of more than £1 billion and yet one in six patients who attend accident and emergency in England will still wait for more than four hours to be treated, what will the Secretary of State be telling health service managers to prioritise this winter? Have they to concentrate on cutting the deficit or cutting the waiting times?

Jeremy Hunt: I am slightly bemused to hear that question from the hon. Gentleman, given that over the past four years NHS funding in England has increased by 10%, whereas in Scotland it has increased by only 5%. Indeed, Scotland now has the longest waiting times on record for elective surgery. What are we saying to NHS managers? We are saying, “We understand how tough it is. You and your teams are doing a brilliant job, and we want to do everything we can to support you through what will be a challenging winter.”

Oliver Heald: As it is Christmas time, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the extra funding and making sure that it is spent effectively in his Department? Does he agree that one important thing to think about at this time of year is winter pressures? In an area such as mine, it is important that there should be some extra funding at the hospital at this time of year. Is he able to say anything about that today in respect of the Lister hospital in Hertfordshire?

Jeremy Hunt: In the spirit of Christmas, I am happy to tell my right hon. and learned Friend that Lister hospital received an extra £2.5 million to help it with winter pressures as a result of the Chancellor’s Budget announcement, and it was told that on Friday.

Ben Bradshaw: With patients in Exeter now waiting more than a year, in pain, for vital surgery—well beyond the 18 week-maximum guaranteed  in the NHS constitution—can the Secretary of State explain the contradictory statements of the Chancellor, who said at the time of the Budget that he expected significant “inroads” to be made into growing waiting time lists, and the NHS England board, which met the following week and said that NHS waiting time standards
“will not be fully funded and met next year”?

Jeremy Hunt: I have been waiting for the right hon. Gentleman to issue the press release welcoming the £1.4 million of extra funding that the Royal Devon and Exeter got in the Chancellor’s Budget, but for some extraordinary reason it has not been forthcoming. Let me tell him that, as many people have commented, the NHS got a lot more money than it was expecting in the winter announcement—

Ben Bradshaw: Answer the question.

Jeremy Hunt: This is money that will, to answer his question, make a big difference in helping the NHS get back to meeting its constitutional waiting time targets.

John Stevenson: I very much welcome the £2 million winter allocation for the hospitals in my area. Funding is clearly important, but given the improvements in the hospitals in my area that are down to the leadership of the chief executives, the leadership team and the staff, does the Secretary of State agree that leadership is as important as funding?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, both things matter, and hospitals do need the right level of funding, but one of the highlights of the year for me was visiting my hon. Friend’s local trust in Carlisle and seeing the total transformation in leadership there. It was one of the most troubled trusts in the NHS but, thanks to the incredible dedication of the doctors, nurses and everyone working in the trust, it has really turned things around.

Martyn Day: The Scottish Government already pay nurses and care assistants the highest rate in the UK, have maintained the nursing bursary, and have now committed to a 3% pay rise for those earning £30,000 or less. Does the Secretary of State recognise that his failure similarly to value NHS staff in England is one reason why England’s nursing vacancy rate is more than double that of Scotland?

Jeremy Hunt: What I recognise is that life expectancy continues to rise in England but has ground to a halt in Scotland. One reason why is that the Scottish National party has consistently not taken the extra resources it could take and put them into the NHS, but has instead chosen other priorities.

Martyn Day: At the previous Health questions, the Secretary of State said that funding from the Chancellor to remove the pay cap would be based on productivity improvements. Will he elaborate on what productivity improvements are expected and when NHS England staff will get the pay rise that they deserve?

Jeremy Hunt: We are having fruitful and productive discussions about productivity with the “Agenda for Change” unions, including the Royal College of Nursing.  We are looking at all sorts of things, including how the increments system works. I am hopeful that we will have a win-win: a modern contract that is fit for the future for “Agenda for Change” staff and that also allows us to go beyond the 1% cap, as the Chancellor has authorised me to do.

Huw Merriman: Of course, this is not just about funding. The Secretary of State recently wrote to East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust to recognise the fact that its A&E department was the most improved in the past six months. When I spoke to the chief executive, he said that the management focus on targets and delivery against them was the reason why that turnaround has occurred.

Jeremy Hunt: I met the chief executive in person last week and was able to congratulate him on several important changes that are happening. He will be pleased that we were able to find £1.9 million more for East Sussex in the Budget. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that it is not just about money. The difference between the Government and the Opposition is that they say it is all about money whereas we know that quality of leadership makes a critical difference in the turning around of our hospitals to make them the best in the world.

Justin Madders: In the past few weeks, Simon Stevens, Sir Bob Kerslake, Sir Bruce Keogh, Jim Mackey, Chris Hopson and a number of other senior public servants have all told the Government that the NHS does not have the funding that it needs. It is patently obvious that, with most performance targets being missed, treatments being rationed and hard-working staff completely demoralised after seven years of pay restraint, funding levels are not sufficient. Arguing with celebrities on Twitter is not going to change that. Even though the Secretary of State has a new-found enthusiasm for 280-character statements, all I ask from him today is one word. Is the NHS getting the funding it says it needs—yes or no?

Jeremy Hunt: What I want to ask the hon. Gentleman requires a one-word answer. Is he happy—

John Bercow: Order. We must observe the terms of debate. It is not for the Secretary of State to ask questions. He has been in the House long enough to know that. Please do not play games with the traditional and established procedures of the House, Secretary of State. You can do better than that.

Jeremy Hunt: Yes, I am delighted that the local hospital of the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) got £2.8 million in the Budget, but I am disappointed that he did not feel able to issue a press release to his local press. I have much enjoyed debating with the hon. Gentleman over the years, but the difference between me and him is that although we both want to find extra money for the NHS, he would do so by hiking corporation tax, which would destroy jobs, whereas Government Members want to get money into the NHS by creating jobs, which is what we are doing.

Social Care

Dan Carden: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for social care.

Nick Smith: What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of funding for social care.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Councils in England will receive an additional £2 billion for social care over the next three years, as announced in March 2017. The Government have given councils access to up to £9.25 billion more dedicated funding for social care over the next three years as a result of measures introduced since 2015. This means that, overall, councils are able to increase spending on adult social care in real terms in each of the next three years.

Dan Carden: Last week’s Health Survey for England revealed that older people in more deprived areas, such as my own constituency of Liverpool, Walton, are twice as likely to have unmet social care needs and our NHS is left picking up the pieces. When will this Government stop passing the buck and bring forward concrete plans on proper investment and reform to end the national scandal that is our care system?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The entitlement to care is completely enshrined in the Care Act 2014, so if needs are not being met, there is a statutory obligation that can be enforced. On the long-term solutions, obviously, we have put in additional money to sort out the short-term funding pressures, but we need to have a long-term and more sustainable deal with which to meet our obligations for social care, which is why we are bringing forward a Green Paper next year. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will participate in that debate.

Nick Smith: Following Four Seasons’ temporary reprieve from administration, what plans are in place to help councils deliver their statutory care duties in the event of the failure of this major provider?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this with me today, because I hope to reassure the House, and anxious people with loved ones in care with Four Seasons, that there is no immediate threat to continuity of care. I and my officials are keeping a very close eye on the situation, so that, with the Care Quality Commission, we ensure that there is a stable transition and that the commercial issues are dealt with in an appropriate way. That is leading to some very challenging conversations, but I can assure him that I and my officials are on it.

Maggie Throup: Given that health and social care are intrinsically linked, even more so now as sustainability and transformation plans are rolled out, does the Minister agree that now is the time to put health and social care under one roof in a combined department?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I have always thought that a silo culture was the enemy of good public policy, which means that integrating policy-making across Government will tend to lead to better outcomes. I can assure my hon. Friend that I have regular conversations with the Department for Communities and Local Government and, as we approach the long-term funding pressures, we will be very much working in tandem.

Barbara Keeley: The recent Health Survey showed not only that unmet needs were most concentrated among people who are the most deprived, as we have just heard, but that 2.3 million older people, aged 65 and over, now have unmet care needs—2.3 million. Neither the care Minister in her recent statement nor the Chancellor in his Budget said anything about closing the funding gap for social care. Given that the Green Paper is only scheduled for next summer, what is the Health Secretary doing about the crisis in funding social care and meeting staggering levels of unmet needs?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady will be aware that, immediately following these questions, we will be having a statement on funding from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. I remind her again that we have made an additional £9.25 billion available for social care over this three years, but she is right that the long-term sustainability will be addressed by reform, which is why we are bringing forward the Green Paper. As to the figures on unmet needs, I simply do not recognise them. The entitlement to care is enshrined in the Care Act, and those rights are protected.

NHS Funding (Autumn Budget)

David Morris: What his priorities are for the additional funding allocated to the NHS in autumn Budget 2017.

David Amess: What his priorities are for the additional funding allocated to the NHS in autumn Budget 2017.

Philip Dunne: The autumn Budget committed to backing the NHS, so that by 2019-20, it will have received an additional £2.8 billion of revenue funding for frontline services, including £337 million for winter allocated last Friday and £3.5 billion of new capital investment by 2022-23 to transform the estate.

David Morris: I welcome the recent Budget announcement of billions more funding for the NHS, particularly the extra support to prepare for the winter. Will the Minister tell me what share of funding my local hospital will attain this winter?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend needs to be congratulated in this House on being a champion of the University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust. The trust has been through some difficulty, and he has stuck with it and supported it. I can confirm that the trust was allocated up to £2 million of funding last Friday; I congratulate it on that. I am sure that he would also join me in congratulating the trust on recently being awarded the title of the eighth most inclusive employer in the UK.

David Amess: Does my hon. Friend share my delight at the £41 million capital allocation that was announced in the recent Budget? Does he agree that that huge sum of money will enable us not only to maintain the present excellent services at Southend hospital, but to enhance and develop them further for the benefit of all local residents?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend has worked tirelessly with his neighbouring colleagues in Essex to secure not only the £41 million to which he refers. In fact, that figure is a component of the £118 million capital allocation made to the Mid and South Essex Sustainability and Transformation Partnership area in the Budget. This will provide significant investment not only in his local hospital in Southend, as he as mentioned, but in Basildon and in Broomfield Hospital in Chelmsford. I am sure that he and his colleagues in Essex welcome that.

Ruth George: My local clinical commissioning group in north Derbyshire has been placed in special measures by NHS England. It has been forced to cut £16 million over just six months and to bring forward the closure of the Spencer ward in Buxton before any proper alternative is in place due to a lack of funding. Does the Minister not agree that the Budget funding is too little, too late?

Philip Dunne: The hon. Lady will be aware that the special measures regime was introduced to help trusts that are having difficulty in meeting quality performance standards to improve their quality. They receive support from NHS Improvement in order to do that. If she would like to write to me with the specific details of her trust’s situation, I would be happy to take up the case. But as far as I am concerned, her trust is on an improvement journey.

Vincent Cable: Given that about a quarter of the additional funding goes to patients with neurological conditions—from strokes to Parkinson’s —what steps is the Minister taking to reduce the often appalling delays between the onset of disease and access to occupational and physical therapy? Will he agree to meet a charity from my constituency of Twickenham called Integrated Neurological Services, which is saving lives and money by drastically reducing that timeline?

Philip Dunne: The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that centralising cardiac services in particular into acute cardiac hospitals is having a significant impact on improving access to treatment by reducing the time it takes to get diagnostic tests and initial treatment, and is therefore saving lives. Specialisation is working in London and in other parts of the country where it is being applied. I am sure that he would welcome the recent allocation to Kingston Hospital of up to £1.3 million to help with winter pressures.

Philip Hollobone: The Minister visited Kettering General Hospital earlier this year and saw for himself that a record number of patients are being treated with increasingly world-class treatments. Will he confirm that the hospital will get £2.6 million to cope with winter pressures this year?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend never fails to highlight the success of Kettering General Hospital. I am delighted to confirm that £2.6 million will be available for that hospital this winter. We are working hard with the hospital management, through the special measures regime, to improve performance in that trust.

John Cryer: Bed occupancy rates across London last winter were running very near to 100%, including at Whipps Cross University Hospital  in my constituency. With the much-vaunted extra funding, what will the bed occupancy rate have been by the end of this winter?

Philip Dunne: Bed occupancy rates are high at this time, not least following the recent cold snap, which has put additional pressure on hospital trusts. We have used some of the funding provided in the March Budget to increase the rates of delayed transfers of care to improve patient flow throughout all hospitals, and that has led to a slight reduction in bed occupancy in the run-up to winter.

Mental Health Workforce

Iain Stewart: What steps he is taking to increase the size of the mental health workforce.

Jeremy Hunt: In order to increase the number of mental health patients we treat by 1 million every year by 2020-21, we are increasing the number of mental health posts in the NHS by 21,000.

Iain Stewart: I certainly welcome that increase, but does my right hon. Friend agree that there is a particular need to address mental health issues in schools? Could he set out what plans he has to give extra support there?

Jeremy Hunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, for the simple reason that prevention is better than cure, and about half of all mental health conditions become established before the age of 14. That is why it was so significant that, following the Budget, we announced the allocation of an extra £300 million through the mental health Green Paper, precisely to improve the service we offer students in schools.

Luciana Berger: The Secretary of State has, on numerous occasions, to both the media and this House, referred to an increase of 4,300 staff working in mental health trusts since 2010. In response to my written parliamentary question, he was unable to clarify whether this 4,300 figure includes the 1,478 people who were rebadged as mental health trust staff following a trust merger in Manchester last year. Nor would he confirm whether this figure includes the 858 people NHS Digital says were already working in the sector, who transferred from primary care trusts to mental health trusts when primary care trusts closed back in 2013. Would the Secretary of State offer the House some festive cheer and take this opportunity to set the record straight?

Jeremy Hunt: I am very happy to offer the hon. Lady festive cheer and to explain to her that, even if her suspicion is right—and I do not believe it is—there has still been a significant increase in the number of staff employed in mental health trusts. The other suspicion she has constantly raised in the media and in this House is that mental health funding is being cut. She will know that the best news of this year is that, last year, funding actually went up by £575 million.

Richard Bacon: Given that the NHS owns a great deal of land and buildings, and that mental health workers and other health workers face high accommodation costs, will the Secretary of State meet me so that I can explain how the benefits of  the Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 could be used as a powerful retention and recruitment tool for mental health workers?

Jeremy Hunt: I commend my hon. Friend for his work and thinking on this through the Public Accounts Committee, and he is absolutely right. I am more than happy to talk to him about this, but we actually have it as a priority to make sure that when NHS land is disposed of, NHS workers get the first opportunity to buy or rent the houses that are built.

Lisa Cameron: There are still not enough staff trained in autism diagnosis across the NHS. Would the Secretary of State consider training a specialist in each community, adolescent and child mental health service right across the country to ensure that there is no longer a postcode lottery?

Jeremy Hunt: I would always listen to the hon. Lady on those matters, because she has huge professional experience. I do not think we do well enough for families with autism, and we are looking at what we can do better, but I have a lot of sympathy for the case the hon. Lady is making.

Malnutrition: Hospital Admissions

Marie Rimmer: What steps his Department is taking to reduce the number of hospital admissions for malnutrition.

Steve Brine: Ensuring all our constituents—particularly the vulnerable and the elderly—are getting an adequate diet is critically important. That is why, for instance, we have given half a million pounds in funding to a special Age UK taskforce to reduce malnutrition among older people, and we will continue to train NHS staff so that early action can be taken.

Marie Rimmer: A merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the Ministers on the Front Bench—maybe they will answer my letter soon.
In the world’s sixth largest economy, it is damning that, under this Government, we have seen a 122% increase in the overall numbers admitted to hospital with malnutrition. It is clear that more action is needed to ensure that we eradicate malnutrition in our society. The Department for Work and Pensions and the Health Department must work together so that, rather than introducing measures such as universal credit eligibility criteria, which will see at least 1 million children lose free school meals, we commit as a country to tackling this issue head on. Will the Minister use his power and influence to ensure that this issue is addressed immediately and that we see an end to this failure to axe malnutrition in the 21st century?

Steve Brine: Happy Christmas to St Helens as well. I agree that we need to work together. The Healthy Start programme, for which I am responsible, provides a nutritional safety net to hundreds of thousands of pregnant women and families with children under four. There is a slight increase in cases being reported in  recent years. In part, that is due to much better diagnosis and detection. Some 1.1 million children get free school meals in England, and the Government are investing £26 million in breakfast clubs. Only last week, Kellogg’s was here with its breakfast club awards—an excellent innovation.

Sharon Hodgson: That being said, it is disgraceful that under this Government’s watch we have seen a 54% increase in children admitted to hospital with malnutrition. Instead of seeing malnutrition rising, we really should be eradicating it. As the festive period is upon us and it is the season for good will and giving, will the Minister give this House an assurance that he will seriously address this matter to ensure that no child in this country ever experiences malnutrition?

Steve Brine: Of course we want no child in our country to experience malnutrition. I mentioned the Healthy Start scheme and the breakfast clubs. Healthy Start is an excellent programme run by Public Health England that encourages a healthy diet among hundreds of thousands of families with children under four. It is exactly that which is helping us to tackle this issue.

Life Sciences

Andrew Bowie: What steps he is taking to support investment in life sciences for the development of new medical treatments.

Steve Brine: The recently announced life sciences sector deal draws significant investment into the sector from across the world, ensuring that the next wave of breakthrough treatments, innovative medical research and technologies—and highly skilled jobs, of course—are created right here in Great Britain.

Andrew Bowie: In Scotland today there are over 600 life sciences organisations employing more than 30,000 people, making Scotland one of the largest life sciences clusters in Europe, so they too will welcome the announcement the Minister mentions. Will he give the House some more detail on the sector deal and industry investments that could give even more strength to this world-leading industry across the United Kingdom?

Steve Brine: The sector’s commercial activity is very broadly spread across the whole of the UK—my hon. Friend’s concern. There are a number of strong emerging life sciences clusters. The deal highlights successes around the UK in Manchester, Leeds, Sheffield, Glasgow, south Wales, and the south-east, so it is a very broad spread.

Daniel Zeichner: Medical research charities play a key role in developing new medical treatments, yet the Charity Research Support Fund, which enables universities to unlock investment from the sector, has been frozen since 2010. Will the Minister heed the call from the Association of Medical Research Charities to enhance CRSF in real terms, in line with inflation and with charity investment?

Steve Brine: I can come back to the hon. Gentleman in more detail on that. As part of the life sciences sector deal, there is just over £210 million of industrial strategy challenge funding for early diagnosis. This includes funding to build on the UK’s leadership in genomics, where we are very strong, and to establish programmes in digital diagnostics and artificial intelligence in healthcare.

Mental Health Workforce

Jeff Smith: How many mental health staff the NHS employed in (a) 2010 and (b) 2017.

Jackie Doyle-Price: Although we cannot meaningfully compare between 2010 and today, I can advise that the number of NHS staff working in mental health and learning disability trusts was 162,611 in July 2013 and 166,905 in July 2017—an increase of 4,334.

Jeff Smith: That did not actually answer my question. Earlier, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Justin Madders) read out a long list of concerned professionals, so let me add one more—Professor Wendy Burn, the president of the Royal College of Psychiatry, who said after the Budget:
“There is a real and imminent danger that the promises made to improve mental health services for the millions of people who need them are about to be betrayed.”
Is she wrong? Is it not true that without proper funding for more staff, the Prime Minister’s pledge to transform mental health services will not be met?

Jackie Doyle-Price: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have published a workforce strategy to deliver exactly on the commitments that the Prime Minister has made. I can report that we have had a significant increase in the workforce. For example, in IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—the number is up by 2,728 since 2012, a 47% increase. The number of psychiatry consultants is up from 4,026 in 2010 to 4,292. The number of community psychiatry nurses is up from 15,500 in 2010 to 16,658 in August 2017. We are delivering the workforce to deliver on the Prime Minister’s commitments. The most important thing is that rather than trade numbers, we should look at outcomes for patients and improving patient care.

Desmond Swayne: Only a quarter of GPs have training in mental health, and it is usually in psychiatric conditions that they are unlikely to encounter routinely. How can we make better use of GPs in mental health?

Jackie Doyle-Price: As my right hon. Friend identifies, training is key, and another central point is GPs’ ability to signpost people to appropriate treatments and therapies, which is exactly why we are investing in specialist care.

Stella Creasy: If we are talking about concerned professionals and outcomes, can we add headteachers and teachers into the mix? One from my area has written to me about a child whom she referred to CAMHS last summer term only to be told that they were 63rd on the list and faced a 14-month wait for help. That is much longer than the  month-long waiting time target that the Government have set. With a shortage of child psychologists, just how are the Government going to keep kids in my constituency safe?

Jackie Doyle-Price: The hon. Lady raises exactly the point that we are trying to address through the Green Paper. We are committed to delivering on the four-week waiting time by 2020, which will make sure that we treat over 70,000 more children with mental health issues that need to be addressed. I will be quite honest: this is not where I want us to be, but that is exactly why the Government have made it a priority and we will deliver by 2020.

A&E Departments

Tom Pursglove: What steps his Department is taking to relieve pressure on A&E departments.

Jeremy Hunt: The Budget announced an extra £337 million to help NHS trusts to deal with the pressures of winter.

Tom Pursglove: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that answer, and I welcome the additional £2.6 million for Kettering General Hospital. As he knows, the Corby urgent care centre is a vital service that helps to relieve pressure on Kettering General’s A&E all year round. What role does he see such facilities playing in relieving pressures, particularly during the winter period?

Jeremy Hunt: I thank my hon. Friend for his campaigning, and I am delighted that the Budget allocated an extra £2.4 million to help Kettering General Hospital. He is absolutely right that urgent care centres play a vital role in keeping people away from busy A&E departments. We need to be better at signposting the public so that they know when to go to a GP surgery, when to go to an urgent care centre and when to go to a hospital.

Mike Gapes: One of the causes of pressure in my part of London is the continuing threat of impending closure to King George Hospital’s A&E. Will the Secretary of State today confirm that the consultation that is now being engaged in will result in the A&E at King George Hospital being saved?

Jeremy Hunt: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until the result of that consultation is published. I visited the trust last week, although I went to the Romford end of it, and I think that it is making great strides in improving the quality of care. I congratulate all the staff at the trust on what they are achieving.

Suicide Rates

Maria Caulfield: What steps his Department is taking to reduce suicide rates.

Jackie Doyle-Price: We remain committed to reducing the national suicide rate by 10% by 2020, and our record investment in mental health will ensure that we can achieve that ambition. Local suicide prevention plans now cover 98% of the country, and we updated  the cross-government suicide prevention strategy in January to strengthen key areas for action, including by focusing on self-harm as an area in its own right.

Maria Caulfield: My constituent Justin Bartholomew, a young man of just 25, recently committed suicide by hanging himself. His family are convinced that the high-energy drinks that he was taking—more than 15 cans a day—increased his anxiety and contributed to his suicide. As there is growing concern about the safety of such energy drinks, may I ask the Minister what assessment of that the Department is undertaking?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I thank my hon. Friend for sharing that very moving case. We have no evidence at this stage that those drinks cause such outcomes, but we know that all stimulants, whether alcohol or caffeine, have consequences that can affect people’s mental health. That is something that bears examination.

Gregory Campbell: What discussions is the Minister having across the United Kingdom to ensure that best practice in dealing with suicide rates, and in particular the escalating rates in the regions of the UK, can be replicated across the United Kingdom as a whole?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I am always keen to learn from areas of the United Kingdom where things are going well. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, our suicide prevention strategy is very much rooted in local prevention plans. Although 98% of the country is covered by those plans, we really want to do a proper audit of how good they are. That will enable us to share best practice across the nations.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I want to take one last grouping. We are out of time, but I want to accommodate the Questions on mental health services—brief questions, brief answers.

Mental Health Services: Children and Young People

Steve Reed: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of access to mental health services for children and young people.

Trudy Harrison: What steps he is taking to improve the provision of mental health services for children and young people.

Christopher Pincher: What steps he is taking to improve mental health provision for children and young people.

Jackie Doyle-Price: We have assessed children and young people’s mental health as part of our ongoing work to improve services, and the results of our assessments have led to £1.4 billion of extra funding to support locally led transformation plans. The recent Green Paper aims to improve the provision of services in schools, bolster links between schools and the NHS, and pilot a four-week waiting time target.

Steve Reed: Many young people with mental ill health report that crisis care is not good enough. Of course, the pressures on them can get even worse over Christmas, so will the Government back the call by the charity YoungMinds to set up a crisis hotline for children and young people that would be available through the existing 111 service?

Jackie Doyle-Price: We are approaching Christmas, and the hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight the fact that it can often be the moment of greatest crisis for people with mental health issues. I was with the Samaritans yesterday to commend it for all its work—it is obviously a good pathway to help—but, absolutely, we will speak with YoungMinds.

Trudy Harrison: “Jesse Evans—Autism Adventures” highlights the daily challenges faced by families living with autism, who are supported by self-sustaining groups such as Autism around the Combe. Will the Minister explain how the recent announcement of a multimillion pound development at West Cumberland Hospital will help those families?

Jackie Doyle-Price: My hon. Friend highlights the great synergy between those health services that the Government can provide, on which people obviously rely, and self-help, which is very important, as well as the help that people can give each other when they share their experiences. I commend the work of Jesse Evans and his “Autism Adventures” blog, which is extremely positive and educational.

Christopher Pincher: My clinical commissioning group delivers better-than-average waiting times for mental health talking therapies and follows up 99% of all vulnerable people within a week of their first appointment. It does all that and more on significantly less than the average budget nationally, so will my hon. Friend look at south-east Staffordshire as a case study for delivering a good service with value for money?

Jackie Doyle-Price: How can I say no to such a proposition? My hon. Friend illustrates the importance of good leadership in all local communities. Where good leaders make something a priority, they will deliver good outcomes at reasonable value for money.

Topical Questions

John Whittingdale: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Jeremy Hunt: Next week, many NHS and social care staff will give up their family Christmas to keep NHS patients safe. I know that the whole House would like to thank them for their dedication and commitment over the festive period.

John Whittingdale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, due to the difficulties in recruiting general practitioners, neither of the two GP surgeries in Maldon are taking on any new patients, despite the significant development taking place in the town? May I therefore welcome the 1,500 extra medical training places that the Government  have funded, and ask for his support for some of those to go to the excellent Anglia Ruskin medical school in Chelmsford?

Jeremy Hunt: I have a great deal of sympathy with what my right hon. Friend says, and he is right that the recruitment and retention of GPs is a big issue. I have a constituency interest, in that I have a university that is also very keen to host more medical school places, so I am recusing myself from the decision. However, I wish all universities good luck, because this is a historic expansion of medical school places for the NHS.

Jon Ashworth: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I am sure that the shadow Secretary of State will be brief, in recognition of the enormous demand from Members wishing to contribute in this session.

Jon Ashworth: May I join the Secretary of State in wishing all our NHS and social care staff a very merry Christmas, and in thanking them for their commitment this winter?
Virgin Care recently won a £100 million contract for children’s health services in Lancashire, but in the Secretary of State’s own backyard of Surrey, Virgin Care recently took legal action against the NHS, forcing it to settle out of court. This money should be going to patient care, not the coffers of Virgin Care, so why will he not step in and fix this scandal so that his Surrey constituents and the NHS do not lose out?

Jeremy Hunt: I, too, am very disappointed about the action taken by Virgin Care, but I gently point out to the hon. Gentleman that, contrary to the narrative that he and his colleagues put out, the reason why it took action was that the NHS stripped it of its contract and gave that back to the traditional NHS sector—hardly the mass privatisation that he is always talking about.

Jon Ashworth: The Secretary of State’s Surrey constituents will have heard that he will not be taking action against Virgin Care.
Our research has revealed that there are vacancies for 100,000 staff across the NHS, and there is a “national crisis in workforce”—not my words, but those of the Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust in the Secretary of State’s constituency. With bed occupancy at the Royal Surrey hitting a peak of 98.7% this winter already, and 94.5% across the NHS on average, can he tell us how he expects the NHS to cope this winter when it is understaffed, overstretched and underfunded?

Jeremy Hunt: If we decide that we want more nurses following Mid Staffs, that creates vacancies. If we want to transform mental health provision, that creates vacancies. That is why we announced a workforce plan, which I notice the Welsh Government have not had time to do yet. But I will finish by wishing the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas. If he wants to take a bit longer off and stay away for January, we are happy to hold the fort.

Craig Tracey: Research shows that breast density is a strong predictor of developing breast cancer, yet many women remain  unaware of the risk. Will the Minister confirm what steps are being taken to educate women with this potentially life-saving information?

Steve Brine: My hon. Friend asks an important question. We have just commissioned Warwick University to investigate the links between breast density and breast cancer. If the findings suggest that there should be any changes to the national breast screening programme, the UK national screening committee will of course consider that, as it does with any new evidence that helps it to target screening appropriately and make women aware of any increased risk of breast cancer. I will be watching this like a hawk.

Jim Cunningham: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of NHS funding for the 2018-19 financial year? Will it be sufficient to deliver the standards set out in the NHS constitution?

Jeremy Hunt: The NHS mandate is very clear that we expect the NHS to move towards hitting those constitution standards which we consider to be vital for patients.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: The Secretary of State will be aware of the decision by my Northumberland CCG to close in-patient beds at Rothbury Community Hospital last year. It was done on the premise of underuse, but local sources continue to indicate that it was due to a shortage of nurses at our excellent Northumbria A&E hospital. Following a passionate campaign led by Katie Scott and the Save Rothbury Community Hospital supporters, Northumberland County Council has referred the decision to the Secretary of State for review. I would be grateful if he could update the House on the timescale for a decision.

Philip Dunne: I can confirm that the health and wellbeing overview and scrutiny committee has submitted a request for a review by the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. I understand that officials have reverted to the committee to clarify the terms of the referral. Once that has come through to the Department, I am sure that the review will take place.

Neil Gray: Last week the Brexit Secretary stated that UK membership of EU agencies is unlikely to continue beyond March 2019, so what provision has the Secretary of State for Health made to replace the European Chemicals Agency, which regulates the raw chemicals required by the pharmaceutical industry to produce drugs in the UK?

Jeremy Hunt: That area will obviously be very important in the negotiations, but we have made our preference clear: a deep and special partnership with the EU in which the benefits of co-operation that we currently have can continue.

Mark Pawsey: Public Health England has stated that e-cigarettes are at least 95% safer than tobacco products and are now the most popular way to stop smoking. What is being done to encourage smokers to quit using this method, and what  steps are being taken to ensure that e-cigarette users are not forced to share their space with people who continue to smoke?

Steve Brine: The truth is that we do not yet know enough about e-cigarettes. I welcome the Science and Technology Committee’s investigation into them. We have asked Public Health England to include messages about the relative safety of e-cigarettes in its Quit Smoking campaign next month, but it is for local organisations and businesses to implement their own policies on e-cigarette use in the workplace.

Kate Green: Seriously unwell individuals continue to be placed in immigration detention, despite the “adults at risk” policy, which states that that should not happen. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what discussions are taking place with Home Office colleagues to ensure that assessment, treatment and screening processes, and the application of rule 35, are properly followed so that vulnerable individuals are not held in detention in  that way?

Jeremy Hunt: I always listen to what the hon. Lady says on these issues. I have had discussions with the Immigration Minister, but if she would like to write to me in detail I am happy to take it up further.

Mary Robinson: Progress on cancer survival overall is hugely welcome, but what more can be done to improve outcomes for oral cancers? The main causes of oral cancer are smoking, drinking and the human papilloma virus, and men are twice as likely as women to suffer from it. Will the Minister inform the House what steps the Government are taking to address this issue?

Steve Brine: As the House knows, cancer is a huge priority for me and for the Government. Survival rates are at a record high, but we know there is much more work to do. Early diagnosis is key, and that is never more true than with oral cancers. We are supporting dentists to play a vital role in spotting mouth cancers early. I was discussing this very point just last week with the British Dental Association, which shares our passion on this issue.

Adrian Bailey: One of my local hospitals, Sandwell, has a problem with the high number of nurses leaving  the profession. But this problem is not confined to Sandwell; it goes across the NHS. What analysis has the Minister done of the reasons for nurses leaving and what will he do to address them?

Jeremy Hunt: We have not been very good at making it easy for people to work flexibility in the NHS. Contracts are too rigid and we are looking to change them. We recognise that for many nurses their commitment to the NHS runs very deep, but that they have to juggle that commitment with family responsibilities. We want to do better.

Marcus Fysh: There are many very committed individuals working in health and social care services in Somerset, but one challenge is getting  enough registered nurses into the system to allow them to integrate. What can the Minister do to help to get more registered nurses?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend will be aware that last week we published the workforce strategy. One major focus was on meeting the Secretary of State’s commitment to increase the number of registered nurses by 25% and to broaden the routes into nursing. There is a commitment to expand the nursing associate role, which is helping to provide opportunities, through an alternative route, for healthcare support workers to become registered nurses.

Alistair Carmichael: Possibly as many as 20,000 babies  have been born with birth defects as a consequence of their mothers having used sodium valproate during pregnancy. When will mandatory warnings be given  to pregnant women about the risks associated with valproate, and when will we see independent analysis of how we got to this dreadful situation?

Steve Brine: There is huge interest in this subject in the House. Over the past three years, there has been extensive work to communicate advice on the risks  of valproate in pregnancy, through a huge number of channels, to help professionals and patients. It is evident from monitoring activities that providing health professionals with information, even when repeated constantly through multiple sources, is not changing prescribing behaviour sufficiently to minimise harm to children exposed to valproate in pregnancy. The expert working group of the Commission on Human Medicines is informing the UK position in European negotiations and advising on the national action required within the UK health system. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Forgive me. I did not mean to be unkind to the Minister who was attending closely to his answer. It is just that we want the whole House to get the benefit of it.

Nigel Huddleston: Will the Minister provide an update on efforts to move Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust out of special measures, and on the status of the promised £29 million for much needed capital improvement programmes?

Philip Dunne: As my hon. Friend is aware, I visited all three hospitals in the trust. I am pleased to be able to announce to him today that the Department of Health has concluded its analysis of the outline business case for the £29 million allocated in July and that it has been approved.

Angela Eagle: On admissions to hospital for malnutrition, will the Minister tell me what has been happening at Wirral University Teaching hospital? Admissions for malnutrition went up from 21 in 2009-10 to 707 in 2014-15. They went up again to 728 and this year currently stand at 586. That seems very, very high. Can anyone tell me what is going on? If not, will Ministers write to me to explain these huge figures?

Steve Brine: There is £2.8 million in extra winter funding, but I will write to the hon. Lady with the details she asks for.

Caroline Spelman: I would like to thank the Minister for listening very sensitively to the victims of Paterson, the rogue surgeon, many of whom are constituents of mine. Does he agree that the evidence from the Hillsborough inquiry is that a bishop-led inquiry can indeed get justice and closure for victims? Will he join me in wishing the Bishop of Norwich great success in getting a good outcome from this inquiry?

Philip Dunne: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for her role in helping to support the victims, many of whom, as she said, are constituents of hers. We are pleased that Bishop James has agreed to take on this inquiry. Bishops provide the ability to empathise with victims and their families, which might not always be the case with judge-led inquiries. As she rightly points out, the Hillsborough inquiry was led by a bishop, but so too is the current Gosport inquiry, while the Morecombe Bay inquiry was led by Bill Kirkup, rather than a judge.

Jessica Morden: Those with erythropoietic protoporphyria cannot be exposed to sunlight or even some artificial light without extremely painful and violent skin reactions. Trials of the drug Scenesse have proved life-changing for constituents such as James Rawnsley, who, for the first time, can now take his kids to school and go on holiday. The decision to make it available on the NHS will be taken soon. Please will the Minister look at it?

Steve Brine: EPP has a devastating impact on a person’s health and quality of life, and is something that the hon. Lady has discussed with me before. We will of course take the matter seriously, and I am very happy to talk to her more about it.

Matthew Offord: Given that my own brother’s funeral will be held later today, may I ask the Secretary of State what help and support he is giving to the families of drug and alcohol abusers?

Jeremy Hunt: The whole House will want to express its condolences to my hon. Friend on what is happening this afternoon. He, alongside many people on both sides of the House, including the shadow Health Secretary, has raised this issue, and we are looking closely at what more support we can give to children in one of the most vulnerable situations imaginable. I thank him for raising the issue.

Rachael Maskell: The NHS patient declaration form for free dental care and prescriptions requires patients to determine the difference between contribution and income-related employment and support allowance. Getting it wrong attracts really hefty fines. Will the Minister ensure that patients first get the opportunity to make the right choice before fines are applied?

Steve Brine: Yes, of course. The NHS Business Services Authority issues the penalty charge notices for incorrect claims for exemption from NHS dental care and prescription charges. We have recently increased the number of checks, however, because ultimately this is taxpayers’ money, and we need to ensure that it is spent properly and legally.

Andrew Selous: I warmly welcome the extra £1.1 million to help with winter pressures at Luton and Dunstable Hospital, and I can tell the ministerial team that the merger with Bedford Hospital is proceeding well, but it needs £150 million of capital. May I ask that favourable consideration be given to that in the allocation of the £3.5 billion announced in the Budget?

Philip Dunne: My hon. Friend will be aware that the Chancellor provided a package of £10 billion in the Budget last month to be invested in the NHS, of which £3.9 billion will come from the Treasury. All bids for capital are being assessed through the STP prism. The proposal that his area will be making will be assessed against others. As far as I am aware, no such proposal has yet been made to NHS England, but it will obviously be looked at in due course.

John Bercow: The challenge is of single-sentence questions and answers.

Louise Haigh: You may recall, Mr Speaker, that I raised earlier in the year the issue of a private mental health hospital in my constituency where a young woman had MRSA and was infecting staff and patients. Since then, there have been numerous inspections in relation to children having access to ligatures and medicines in order to overdose. Will the Secretary of State commit to a policy to ensure that no child or young person is placed in a mental health facility that is deemed unsafe?

Jackie Doyle-Price: I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue, which she and I have met to discuss before. She is right to highlight the ongoing inspections and issues, and I have written to her to offer to discuss the matter with her again. It is absolutely unacceptable that anybody is placed in a facility that is deemed unsafe.

Paul Masterton: May I thank the ministerial team on behalf of my constituent Susan Bradley for finally laying the remedial order for single-parent surrogates, and can they assure me that they will do everything they can to get it through Parliament as quickly as possible?

Philip Dunne: An all-party parliamentary group has been established this week, I believe, to take this issue forward, and I look forward to speaking to that group, if invited, next month. The remedial order will follow due parliamentary process, which involves its being laid for 60 days and then, after an interval, for a further 60 days.

Steve McCabe: There have been 15,000 violent assaults on mental health workers in the west midlands over the last five years. What is the Government’s response to the Care Quality Commission’s opposition to routine searches of all mental health service users for weapons on admission or return to acute in-patient units?

Jeremy Hunt: I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are putting a lot of effort into patient safety and staff safety in mental health trusts, and we are discovering that there is a wide  variation between practices. The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and, if I may, I will write to him to inform him of our progress.

Martin Vickers: The patient transport service in northern Lincolnshire is contracted to Thames Ambulance Service Ltd, which is failing miserably to perform to an adequate standard. Will the Minister meet me, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and other neighbouring Members, to discuss what influence the Department can bring to bear?

Philip Dunne: I should be happy to do so.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. I appreciate the commitment of colleagues. The session has overrun, but I feel that colleagues will go home for Christmas content only if they have asked their questions and they have been answered. I am extremely grateful to the Front-Bench teams on both sides of the House.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that in the course of this hour there have been more questions about hospital closures than about almost anything else, covering East Yorkshire, Berwick on his own side, Warwickshire on our side, and High Peak in Derbyshire, including Bolsover and Bakewell hospitals? There is a growing suspicion that what this Secretary of State is up to is leaving those hospitals and losing all the beds in them forever so that the private sector can move in and take the lot. That is what is going to happen.

Jeremy Hunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Christmas cheer. Let me just say to him that if that were the Government’s intention, we would not have found an extra £2.8 billion for the NHS in the Budget, including £1.95 million for Chesterfield hospital, which will benefit his own constituents.

Mims Davies: Some 50% of young people do not use a condom with a new partner and one in 10 young adults never uses one, which means the chance of an unwanted pregnancy or, indeed, a sexually transmitted disease. Please will the Department do something to ensure that people are aware of the benefits of condoms?

Steve Brine: Men may not be very good at wrapping at this time of year, but they need to get this one right. I welcome Public Health England’s “protect against STIs” campaign, which was launched last week and aims to reduce rates among 16 to 24-year-olds, and I encourage young people having fun this Christmas to do so sensibly.

Alison Thewliss: There is an increasing trend for women to share breast milk over the internet with no recourse to the milk banking guidelines from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Will the Minister meet me, and other members of the all-party parliamentary group on infant feeding and inequalities, to discuss the matter further and to ensure that breast milk can be used safely?

Jackie Doyle-Price: As the hon. Lady says, it is important for us to ensure that anything that happens in this space is safe, and I should be very pleased to meet her and other members of the all-party group.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. Members can ask questions consisting of no more than one sentence each.

Liz McInnes: What funds are being made available to our mental health services to meet the additional demands placed on them by changes in the Mental Health Act 1983, which came into force on 11 December this year?

Jeremy Hunt: I can reassure the hon. Lady that we are putting a lot of extra funding into mental health— £575 million last year alone—to meet those and other obligations.

Karin Smyth: NHS Property Services exists on a merry-go-round of taxpayers’ money. Will the Secretary of State give us all a Christmas  present by closing it down and returning the control of property to local health communities?

Jeremy Hunt: I understand why the hon. Lady has asked that question. I think it fair to say that NHS Property Services has been on a journey and needs to do even better, but we also want to ensure that NHS land is made available for housing for NHS staff.

James Frith: Will the Secretary of State consider the NHS as a funder of last resort for hospices such as Bury hospice, so that they can operate at full capacity and play their part in the delivery of social care?

Jeremy Hunt: We often are a funder of last resort for the hospice movement—and perhaps thanking them for  the extraordinary work that they will be doing over the festive period and beyond is the right note on which to end today.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE SETTLEMENT

Sajid Javid: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on funding for local authorities in England next year.
From 2015 to 2020, councils in England have access to over £200 billion to deliver the high-quality services their local communities need. They deserve no less; local government is on the frontline of the country’s democracy, with councillors and officers working at the heart of the communities that they serve. But to make the most of that local knowledge, councils need greater control of the money they raise: they need greater freedom to tackle challenges in their areas, and they need the certainty and stability that will allow them to plan ahead.
This Government are committed to delivering that, and today I am publishing a draft local government finance settlement that marks an important milestone in the journey to doing so. It comes in the third year of a four-year deal that was accepted by 97% of councils in return for publishing efficiency plans. We will continue to work with the sector to help councils increase transparency and share best practice, supporting greater progress in delivering increased efficiency over the coming year. I expect this to have a tangible impact on the steps that councils take to promote efficiency from 2019-20.
Local government operates in a society that is constantly changing, and the system of financing local government needs to reflect that. The current formula of budget allocations has served local councils and communities well over the years, but to meet the challenges of the future we need an updated and more responsive distribution methodology that gives councils the confidence to face the challenges and opportunities of the future. So I am today publishing a formal consultation on a review of relative needs and resources. I aim to implement a new system based on its findings in 2020-21.
Alongside the new methodology, in 2020-21 we will also be implementing the latest phase of our business rates retention programme, a scheme that gives local councils the levers and incentives they need to grow their local economies. The aim is for local authorities to retain 75% of business rates from 2020-21. That will be done through incorporating existing grants into business rates retention, including the revenue support grant and the public health grant. Local authorities will be able to keep that same share of growth on their baseline levels from 2020-21, when the system is reset. So from 2020-21 business rates will be redistributed according to the outcome of the new needs assessment, subject to suitable transitional measures.
A number of 100% retention pilots have already been announced and they will continue. A further pilot will begin in London in 2018-19, and we had intended that a further five pilots would begin that same year. However, interest in the scheme was such that we will now be taking forward twice as many as planned. I am pleased to announce today that the new pilots will take place  in Berkshire, Derbyshire, Devon, Gloucestershire, Kent and Medway, Leeds, Lincolnshire, Solent, Suffolk,  and Surrey.
The first batch of pilots are taking place largely in urban authorities; the second wave will mainly cover counties. This ensures that councils right across the country will benefit, that the scheme can be tested in a wide range of environments, and that the benefits of growth are broadly comparable between London, existing pilots and new pilots. We received so many applications to take part that we will continue the pilot business rates retention programme in 2019-20, and further details will be published in due course.
Over the past year, my Ministers and officials have been listening to councils of all shapes and sizes, understanding their concerns and working together to develop ways of tackling them. The result of those conversations is reflected in this draft settlement. For example, rural councils have expressed concern about the fairness of the current system, with the rural services delivery grant due to be reduced next year. So today I can confirm that I will increase the rural services delivery grant by £15 million in 2018-19, meaning that the total figure will remain £65 million for the remainder of the current four-year settlement.
We have also heard concerns about the proposed changes to the new homes bonus. To date, we have made almost £7 billion of new homes bonus payments to reward the building of 1.4 million homes. Over £946 million in new homes bonus payments will be allocated in 2018-19, rewarding local authorities for their work on fixing our broken housing market. I have consulted on proposals to link new homes bonus payments to the number of successful planning appeals, and considered raising the NHB baseline. Following conversations with the sector, I have been persuaded of the importance of continuity and certainty in this area. So today I can confirm that in the year ahead no new changes will be made to the way in which the new homes bonus works, and that the NHB baseline will be maintained at 0.4%.
As I set out in the housing White Paper, local authorities will be able to increase planning fees by 20% when they commit to investing the additional income in their planning services. This is a significant step towards addressing the widespread concerns about under-resourcing in local planning authorities. Following discussions with the sector, I am also announcing a continuation of the capital receipts flexibility programme for a further three years. This scheme gives local authorities the continued freedom to use capital receipts from the sale of their own assets. This will help to fund the costs of transformation and release savings.
One particular issue causing concern for some councils is so-called negative revenue support grant. This is where changes in revenue support grant have led to a downward adjustment of some local authorities’ business rates top-up or tariff for 2019-20. I recognise the strength of feeling in local government on this issue, and I can confirm that my Department will be looking at fair and affordable options for dealing with negative RSG. We will formally consult on proposals in the spring, so that the findings will be in ahead of next year’s settlement.
Of course, anyone who has spoken to anyone in local government will be aware of concerns about funding for adult and children’s social care. That is why, over the past 12 months, we have put billions of pounds of extra funding into the sector, and why the Department for Education is spending more than £200 million on innovation and improvement in children’s social care. In the spring  Budget, an additional £2 billion was announced for adult social care over the next three years. Along with the freedom to raise more money more quickly through the use of the social care precept that I announced this time last year, we have given councils access to £9.25 billion of dedicated funding for adult social care over the next three years. However, we also need to find a long-term solution to challenges that are not going away. That is why we have already announced that a Green Paper on future challenges within adult social care will be published in the summer of 2018.
Finally, I am conscious of calls for further flexibility in the setting of council tax. We all want to ease growing pressure on local government services, but I am sure that none of us wants to see hard-working taxpayers saddled with ever-higher bills. This settlement needs to strike a balance between those two aims, giving councils the ability to increase their core council tax requirement by an additional 1% without a local referendum, bringing the core principle in line with inflation. We have abolished Whitehall capping. Under the Localism Act 2011, local government can increase council tax as it wishes, but excessive rises need to be approved by local residents in a referendum. This provides an important check and balance against the excessive increases that were seen under the last Labour Government, when council taxes more than doubled.
This change, combined with the additional flexibility on the adult social care precept that I confirmed last year, gives local authorities the independence they need to help to relieve pressure on local services such as adults’ and children’s services, while recognising that many households face their own pressures. In addition, directly elected mayors will decide the required level of precept by agreement with their combined authorities. I am sure that voters will be watching closely, as I will, to ensure that that freedom is not abused.
I can also confirm that the Government intend to defer the setting of referendum principles for town and parish councils for three years. This is subject to the sector taking all available steps to mitigate the need for council tax increases, and the Government seeing clear evidence of restraint in the increases set by the sector as a whole. I have also agreed measures with the Home Secretary to make it easier for police and crime commissioners to meet local demand pressures by allowing a £12 council tax flexibility for police services, raising an additional £139 million next year.
This settlement recognises the need to keep spending under control while also tackling many of the issues that have been raised by local government over the past year. Two years of real-terms increases in resources being made available to local government will give local authorities the funding and freedom they need to make decisions in the best interests of the communities they serve. It is a settlement that offers councils the resources they need, the stability they have requested and the fairness they deserve, and I commend it to the House.

Andrew Gwynne: I thank the Secretary of State for giving me a copy of his statement. I have had the briefest possible time in which to adequately consider its contents, but it was nevertheless given to me in advance.
I pay tribute to councillors and officers across the country who are on the frontline of this Government’s austerity agenda yet who continue to serve our communities as well as they can. Many of them will have been looking to today’s settlement for assurances that the Government understand the challenges facing local government. Councils have already experienced unprecedented funding cuts since 2010, and since the general election, they have been left in the dark about the Government’s sustainable long-term funding plans.
The Secretary of State says that he is listening to councils “of all shapes and sizes”, but why must he exacerbate the rural-urban split? He has listened to Surrey—that much is clear—but in doing so, he has ignored the needs of Stockton, Salford and Sheffield. Before the general election, we had been promised a full legislative package to fund local government beyond the revenue support grant. Now, however, we have been promised not legislation but a consultation. Councils are desperate for additional funding, and they might well appreciate some of the piecemeal solutions offered by the Secretary of State today, but we are still without a sustainable plan or a vision for how the sector will be funded in the future. The Secretary of State notes that the aim is for authorities to retain 75% of business rates by 2020, and I look forward to hearing more details of how that will function, recognising that not every area has the ability to raise the income locally.
Many will have looked to today’s announcements to offer solutions to the crisis in children’s services, after the Chancellor failed to mention them in his Budget. Demand for children’s services is placing unbearable pressures on local authorities. Central Government funding to support children and their families has been cut by 55% over the past seven years—a total cut of £1.7 billion —forcing less money to be invested in intervention to cover the cost of emergency care. The result of these cuts has been appallingly clear—[Interruption.]—if the Secretary of State chooses to listen. Cuts to early years intervention have meant a record number of children—some 72,000 last year—being taken into care. The number of serious child protection cases has doubled in the last seven years, with 500 new cases launched every day. More than 170,000 children were subject to child protection plans last year, which is double the number seven years ago.
The Secretary of State recognises the crisis facing children services, but he just brushes it aside. I suggest that he listens to Lord Gary Porter, who warned recently that both adult social care and children’s services were “at the very top” of the Local Government Association’s “worry list”, saying:
“If we don’t look after our older and younger people, it’s bad for our residents, bad for our communities and bad for our services more widely.”
It was important that today’s statement provided much-needed certainty to our communities. Instead, it acts merely as a sticking plaster and pushes the problems down the road for another Secretary of State to fix.
Our key tests for today’s announcement are whether it addresses the cuts to everyday services and properly funds councils to deliver those services in future, whether it assists the funding crisis in children’s services, and whether it fully pays towards local government staff getting a decent wage. It is interesting that the council-tax-raising flexibilities will not even cover the pay rise, which will itself place further pressure on the cutting  of services. On the day that Labour’s shadow health team announced that 2.3 million older people have been left with unmet needs, which is up from 1.2 million, another test is whether the announcement ensures that our aged and vulnerable people are supported and protected. In addition, does it ensure fair funding in the truest sense of the word “fair”? Does it address the uncertainty around RSG, recognising that areas with greatest social and health inequality are also the least able to fill the funding gap by other means?
The statement fails on all those counts. While today’s announcement offers some additional support, it merely pays lip service to many of the problems facing our local councils. The Secretary of State has today presented himself as Santa, but the details of the announcement really show him to be the Grinch.

Sajid Javid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his Christmas spirit. Time and again, he stands at the Dispatch Box and says just one thing: he wants more spending. He wants more spending on police, fire services, children’s services, adult social care, sprinklers, pay and pensions—spending, spending, spending. It is the only thing he knows. However, not once has he appeared at the Dispatch Box or anywhere else to tell the country how he intends to pay for all that spending. The truth is that it is the same old Labour, and Labour is all about higher spending, higher taxes, higher debt—all the same polices that will take our economy down to its knees and crash it. It is the only thing that Labour knows.
I want to remind the House about what happened the last time Labour was in office. We had the deepest recession in almost 100 years, which destroyed the  lives of so many millions of people in this country. Unemployment was 500,000 higher when the Labour Government left office than when they first came into office, ensuring that they delivered on the one promise of every Labour Government: they will always leave unemployment higher than they found it. Under the 13 years of Labour Government, council tax bills went up by almost 110%, and their measures contributed to the deepest budget deficit of modern times. We will take no lectures at all from the hon. Gentleman.
I of course recognise the pressure on councils, and we have done something about that in the settlement by increasing real-terms spending power for the next two years while ensuring that we maintain a balance between the need for councils to provide services and taxpayers themselves. The hon. Gentleman mentioned negative RSG, but perhaps he was not listening carefully because I said that I will be consulting early in the new year on options to deal with that challenge, which will be welcomed by the sector even it if it is not welcomed by him. He referred to the business rates retention pilots, suggesting that there was some political dimension to how they were chosen. He said that Sheffield and Stockton did not get a pilot, but it would have helped if they had actually applied for one. Councils need to apply for something before they can get it. He then mentioned Salford, but perhaps he does not know that Salford is part of a business rates retention pilot as part of the Greater Manchester region, which received a pilot earlier this year. It would really help if the hon. Gentleman did his homework before he appears at the Dispatch Box and starts making things up.
As for social care, the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that we have acknowledged the pressures, particularly the short-term pressures, which is why the spring Budget allocated an additional £2 billion. Together with the extra flexibility through the precept, that will lead to a real-terms spending increase in each of the next three years.
Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about his tests, which included seeing whether local authorities are properly and fairly funded. The one thing he should know is that, in order to fund any public services fairly, including those provided by our excellent local authorities, we need a successful economy, which Labour will never deliver.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Order. As per usual on a matter of this kind, there is extensive interest in participating in the exchanges on the statement, so I will just make two points. First, people who arrive late obviously should not stand or expect to be called. Secondly, because of the pressure on time and the fact that there is another statement to follow, there is a premium upon brevity, which must be exhibited—even by a lawyer. I call Robert Neill.

Bob Neill: I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Will he confirm that it is particularly important for councils with a long history of efficient financing and a low cost base, such as the London Borough of Bromley, that the review of relative costs and needs ensures that financial efficiency is properly incentivised within the local government finance system?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman speaks with experience as a former Minister in this Department, and I thank him for his comment. I can confirm that. This is all about efficiency and ensuring that local authorities have the right incentives, which is why our business rates retention plan, for example, will help to deliver just that.

Alison Thewliss: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. On the distribution methodology, I am glad to see quite a long lead-in time for that and a consultation in advance of something being done. Will he tell us more about how closely monitored the business rates retention scheme will be to ensure that there is no gap between business rates and the revenue support grant? If a big business goes to the wall, a gap could suddenly appear in a local authority’s budget, so how does he intend to cushion the loss of a high-tariff business rates company in a council area?
How does the Secretary of State intend for local authorities that have already disposed of a lot of their assets to gain capital receipts, which are clearly a declining resource for some local authorities? What advice would he give to councils that have essentially sold off everything they can?
The Communities and Local Government Committee, of which I was a member in the previous Parliament, published a fair and reasonable report on adult social care, but the Government unfortunately did not accept all its recommendations. When the Secretary of State brings the Green Paper to Parliament, will he look again at some of those recommendations? Will he provide  some more detail on why summer 2018 has been chosen? It is quite far away, and this Government have broad definitions of what seasons are in this place. Is there really a need to wait for at least another six months?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Lady raises several points, but I will try to answer them all quickly. It is important that we take our time to get the fair funding review right, and I think she would agree with that. Part of the process involves ensuring that issues are properly consulted on, which is why we launched the 12-week consultation today. On capital flexibility, it is important to give local authorities more freedom to raise funds, including capital funds. If they want—it is their decision alone—to sell capital assets and to use that funding more efficiently for local people, that option should be open to them, so guaranteeing that flexibility for another three years is important.
On adult social care, I welcomed the Communities and Local Government Committee’s report. It made a number of recommendations, including one about more short-term support, which is why the funding that we provided in the Budget, for example, earlier this year is important. As for the Green Paper, it is very important that we take the time to get things right, consult widely, try to work across different parties and listen to people as well as care users. By taking that time, we can come up with a more sustainable long-term system.

Bob Blackman: My right hon. Friend has mentioned that 97% of councils are in the third year of a four-year settlement. Will he therefore confirm the position for the small group of councils that refused to publish an efficiency plan? Will they be rewarded for their failure, or will they be penalised in the funding they receive under this settlement?

Sajid Javid: The reward for accepting the four-year settlement is actually for the local people those local councils represent. The councils that did not accept the four-year settlement—it was around 10 councils, so it was a very small number—should reflect on what that means for local people, because local people want to see certainty on the delivery of services. Those councils should certainly take a close look at that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I gently reiterate that those who arrived late should not stand. I have already made the point once, and it should not be necessary for me to make it again, but regrettably it has proved to be so.

Clive Betts: I welcome some aspects of the statement, such as the increase in money from planning fees. On the flexibility on council tax increases, will the Secretary of State confirm the figures given to me by the Local Government Association that show that, even if the flexibility were fully used, it would raise just £250 million next year? That compares with the LGA’s estimate of the shortfall in funding for social care of more than £2 billion, even after the measures previously announced by the Government are taken into account. Will he also confirm that councils will raise very different amounts of money from such flexibility, depending on the size of their council tax base?

Sajid Javid: I always listen carefully to the hon. Gentleman, and I know he looks at these issues carefully. The extra flexibility on council tax means that the total core spending power this financial year of £44.3 billion will rise to £45.6 billion by 2019-20. That is an increase in real terms, so there will be real growth in core spending power in each of the next two years.

Mary Robinson: I welcome the Secretary of State’s confirmation of the continuation of the 100% business rates retention pilots in areas such as Greater Manchester. Does he agree that the success of business rates retention is key to continued growth in Greater Manchester and the success of the northern powerhouse?

Sajid Javid: Yes, I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We have already seen that the early pilots encouraged local authorities to think much more carefully about how they can attract local business, and we will see much more of that in the new pilots we announced today.

Louise Ellman: Thirty per cent. of Liverpool’s children are now in poverty, and the council is set to lose 68% of its budget by 2020. What is the Secretary of State going to do about the looming crisis in children’s social care? It did not even get a mention in his statement.

Sajid Javid: I gently say to the hon. Lady that I did talk about social care and children’s social care in my statement, and I certainly highlighted the additional funding that is being provided over the short term, including the £2 billion in the spring Budget. She mentions Liverpool. Based on what I have shared today, and if Parliament votes through the draft settlement, there will be an £8.7 million increase in her local authority’s core spending power, which it can decide to use as it wishes.

Christopher Chope: My right hon. Friend will know that, last Thursday, there was a local referendum in Christchurch in which more than 17,600 people voted against the abolition of Christchurch Borough Council. He has given the council only until 8 January to make an alternative submission. In the light of the financial implications of his announcement today, will he extend the period so that the implications of these important changes, which particularly affect rural Dorset, can be taken into account in making that alternative proposal?

Sajid Javid: We are not looking to extend that period. However, we will listen carefully to what Christchurch Borough Council has to say following the referendum. As I have said right from the start, at this point it is a “minded to” decision. There is no final decision, and it is important that we listen carefully to everyone, including of course Christchurch Borough Council.

Jack Dromey: What planet does the Secretary of State live on? How can it be right that Birmingham loses £700 million, the biggest cut in local government history, and that every household in Birmingham loses more than £2,000, yet the leafy  Tory shires of Surrey and Sussex and the Prime Minister’s constituency of Maidenhead gain at the expense of Britain’s second city?

Sajid Javid: What the hon. Gentleman fails to mention, and it is not surprising, is that Birmingham has one of the country’s highest core spending powers per dwelling. If it were a better-run local authority, it would be able to do a lot more with that money.

Henry Smith: Seven of the business rates retention areas mentioned by the Secretary of State are counties, so I was disappointed that West Sussex was not named as one of those areas, despite the strong bid by the district and county councils. With education pressure in the county, can I have early consideration of West Sussex being allowed business rates retention in the near future?

Sajid Javid: There were, I believe, 27 bids for the new pilots. As I mentioned, we intended to have five pilots, which we managed to increase to 10. I know the decision will still disappoint some colleagues, which is why I also announced today that we will be taking many pilots forward into the following year and announcing further pilots early in the new year.

Mike Amesbury: Given that Halton Borough Council will have had its budget cut by £61 million by 2020 and that Cheshire West and Chester Council faces a further £57 million-worth of cuts, how does the Secretary of State propose that they provide vital services to the most vulnerable residents and constituents in Weaver Vale?

Sajid Javid: I know that the hon. Gentleman will never want to be my friend and share a beer with me, but he should be pleased that, under the draft settlement, the Halton unitary authority will see a £1.7 million increase in spending power, which I know will be welcome.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: I have just noticed that two Government Whips are wearing identical ties, which takes the concept of party discipline to a new level. I am not sure whether to be encouraged or appalled. I leave it to colleagues to make their own judgment, political and aesthetic.

Philip Hollobone: I declare my interest as a member of Kettering Borough Council.
Northamptonshire County Council might be the local highways authority, but it has run out of road. The council will set a legal budget for 2018-19, but it has made it clear that it will not be able to finance its statutory functions in 2019-20 unless something changes. Part of the solution is obvious to many local councillors: local government needs to be restructured in the county. Will the Secretary of State encourage the presentation of such proposals for his consideration?

Sajid Javid: The proposals in today’s statement will lead to almost £13 million of additional funding for Northamptonshire County Council, which I know will be welcome. My hon. Friend makes a wider point about  longer-term sustainability, and he will know I am ready to consider any proposals on restructuring from Northamptonshire County Council or other local councils in the area. I will take such proposals seriously if they come forward.

Derek Twigg: Halton Borough Council has had a 60% cut since 2010, and it is struggling to ensure it has enough money to fulfil its statutory responsibilities. If the funding situation continues as it is now, the council will have a real problem in future years. What is the Secretary of State doing to consider smaller unitary authorities such as Halton that have a very good record on efficiency but are struggling with the current financial settlement? He did not set out today any sustainable financial help for local authorities such as Halton, or any financial funding solution for local government in general.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that other council areas have come forward with restructuring proposals, and we are looking at having a bottom-up approach. If a local authority area has an idea and it wants to restructure, it should approach us. The Dorset region was mentioned earlier. We are looking at a proposal on that region, which includes some smaller unitary authorities as well. We want a bottom-up approach where these ideas are put to us and we will give them active consideration.

Andrew Percy: On children’s services, may I urge my right hon. Friend not to take lectures from the Labour party but to look at what is going on in Conservative-run North Lincolnshire Council, where we have turned children’s services around to such an extent that they are one of only three to be rated as outstanding? There is a particular emphasis on the social enterprise PHASE, which is helping young people on a ladder into permanent accommodation and tenancies when they leave. May I urge him to visit North Lincolnshire to see the incredible work that has been done to help young care leavers in our county?

Sajid Javid: I would be happy to visit North Lincolnshire. The council is doing an excellent job. I am sure that it will be pleased at today’s announcement that it will be part of the Lincolnshire business rates retention pilot.

Karen Buck: Having had one of the deepest cuts in Government support in the entire country, leading to the closure of the entire youth service and cuts of more than a third in children’s services, Westminster City Council has announced plans for a voluntary levy on properties worth more than £10 million. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of making contributions to local taxation from the super-rich, in effect, a matter of personal choice?

Sajid Javid: First, the hon. Lady will know that, because of the disastrous state the economy was left in by the Government she supported, all local authorities, not just Westminster, have had to learn to spend money more wisely. With this settlement, Westminster, like other local authorities, will see an increase in spending power. If Westminster wishes to come forward with a voluntary plan that it wants us to consider, it should submit it to us.

Peter Aldous: The business rates retention pilot for Suffolk is very welcome news, but residents in county areas such as Suffolk are facing significantly higher council tax burdens. Will the Secretary of State assure me that the fair funding review is going to be progressed with real urgency?

Sajid Javid: I can absolutely give my hon. Friend the assurance that we are looking seriously at the fair funding issues, which is why today’s launch of the consultation is an important step. Over the next 12 weeks, we will look at the cost drivers, which will have a direct input into the outcome of that review, making sure that all local authorities are funded on the basis of their actual needs.

Chris Leslie: Surely the Secretary of State will agree that any funds available should be allocated on the basis of need and evidence. He is surely not going to look at what he did previously, when he used the transitional grant scheme and a large lump of money mysteriously found its way to wealthier areas, bypassing the midlands, the north and cities such as Nottingham. The National Audit Office criticised the opacity and political allocation of that. He is not going to use that discredited ruse again this year, is he?

Sajid Javid: There would have been less of a need for a fair funding review to make sure that funding is allocated based properly on needs if the last time it was done, in 2007, it had been done properly and had actually been based on needs. I agree with the hon. Gentleman’s central point, which is that we need to look again at how funds are allocated to make sure that that is done on the basis of need. That is why I think he will welcome today’s consultation.

Jeremy Lefroy: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement on flexibility on the police precept, but may I ask him to consider some flexibility on the county council precept for care, as counties such as Staffordshire, which have kept their costs to a minimum over the years, are at a disadvantage with the percentage-based increase, as opposed to a flat-rate increase?

Sajid Javid: I assure my hon. Friend that care, be it children’s social care or adult social care, is at the forefront of our mind when looking at this settlement and making sure that the resources that are needed are in place. That is why we have the increase announced at the spring Budget, with half of that £2 billion coming this financial year. As for Staffordshire, it has that extra flexibility, like other councils, but this settlement will also lead to an additional £10.6 million, which I am sure will be welcome.

Wera Hobhouse: Has today’s announcement actually reversed anything in the long-term tendency to punish more deprived areas in this country?

Sajid Javid: What today’s announcement has done is make sure that local authorities have the resources they need to look after their local communities.

Mark Pawsey: I welcome the fact that progressive councils such as Rugby Borough Council will continue to receive incentives to provide much-needed  new housing through the retention of the new homes bonus. Will the Secretary of State also confirm that they will be rewarded for doing the right thing by continuing to make available adequate land for commercial development?

Sajid Javid: Yes, my hon. Friend raises an important point. We had a number of representations from local authorities for us to provide some continuity and certainty on the new homes bonus, which is exactly what I have proposed today. I hope that continues to lead councils such as Rugby, and others, to plan for the homes and commercial property that local communities need, so that they can have stronger local business and enterprise.

Alison McGovern: Cash-strapped Wirral Council has found more than £300,000 to deal with the consequences of the New Ferry explosion. So far the Government have not done enough. Will the Secretary of State update me as to their response to Wirral Council’s rebuild plan for New Ferry?

Sajid Javid: I am determined to try to help with that disaster and help the council deal with it. The council would have helped itself by presenting its business case a lot earlier, and not taking months and months to put it together. The council should show better efficiency with the public money it has. For example, it could stop spending 240,000 a year on a local newspaper publication. Things like that would help build local confidence.

Huw Merriman: May I invite the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) down to East Sussex, as I am not sure I recognise the picture he was painting? East Sussex County Council has made £110 million in savings, it has allocated its reserves, it does not have a great business rate yield and many constituents of Members in this House will retire in East Sussex. Is it time to look at having the social care model along the lines of the NHS and consider centralised funding?

Sajid Javid: First, I join my hon. Friend in congratulating East Sussex on its approach to the challenges it faces, including on social care. It is a great place to retire, which leads to changing demographics. That is one of the things that will be looked at by the Green Paper we will publish next summer.

Kevan Jones: On the formula for transitional funding, what consideration is given to the percentage of core spending a council derives from revenue support grant? In Durham’s case it is 14.3%, whereas in Surrey’s it is 3.5%. That meant that last year core spending in Durham fell by 1.2%, whereas in Surrey the figure was 0.1%.

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that for various reasons, over a number of years, councils have had a different proportion of central grant versus funds that are raised locally, for example, through business rates. It is important to take that into account for all councils. What really matters is their core spending power: all the sources of spending power they have. He will be pleased to know that with today’s proposal there will be an increase for Durham of £5.6 million, which  is 1.4%.

Tom Pursglove: I certainly welcome a fundamental review of local government finance and, in particular, the fairer funding commitment, but is there any help coming down the track for local authorities that are particularly affected by the issue of unaccompanied asylum seeking children, which places a cost pressure on those local authorities, such as Northamptonshire County Council?

Sajid Javid: I am pleased that my hon. Friend has raised this issue. I recognise the good work that so many councils do to look after unaccompanied asylum seeking children, who are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. One thing I am doing today is making an additional £19 million available for next year to help the local authorities most affected to help some of the most vulnerable people.

Richard Burden: The modification of the 2016-17 allocation formula to take account of councils’ ability to raise council tax was at least the start of an acknowledgement that councils with the highest levels of deprivation should not face the biggest cuts. Nevertheless, will the Secretary of State take it from me that the failure to address that issue in the previous two years has meant that Birmingham is now being short-changed to the tune of £100 million? What is there in his statement to address that and avoid even more swingeing cuts hitting children’s services and adult social care in my city?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman’s central point is that there has to be a recognition that different councils have a different council tax base so are affected in different ways when they make a percentage change to that council tax. In the case of Birmingham and many other local authorities in which the council tax base might be relatively low, that is recognised so that with respect to, for example, adult social care, when new funding is allocated, including the additional £2 billion announced earlier this year, the improved better care fund makes sure that the fundraising powers that exist locally are taken into account.

Matt Warman: Deprivation is by no means limited to urban areas, and I know that that is why the Secretary of State has listened to the powerful fair funding case made by Lincolnshire County Council. I welcome the fact that the business rates pilot is coming to the county, but will my right hon. Friend tell us how else such big, sparsely populated counties will be helped by the settlement? What more money is coming to Lincolnshire?

Sajid Javid: The business rates pilot will certainly help Lincolnshire and give it more incentives to attract more local business. Today’s announcement of an additional £15 million for the rural services delivery grant will help Lincolnshire and many other local authorities. If we exclude any extra income from the business rates pilot, today’s announcement will mean £11.5 million of additional spending power for Lincolnshire, which I know will be welcomed.

Lilian Greenwood: Whether it is the community protection officers who keep our neighbourhoods safe, the social workers who protect vulnerable children or the workers in libraries, museums,  schools and day centres, local government staff are working harder than ever and deserve a pay rise. What resources will the Secretary of State provide to ensure that councils can afford to give them one without making even deeper cuts to services?

Sajid Javid: I can mention a few changes that will help local councils to deliver services: the increase in the police precept, on which there will be a further statement after this one; the adult social care funding that was provided in the Budget; and today’s announcement of additional flexibility in council tax.

Tim Loughton: I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) that West Sussex is not included in the business rate retention pilots. I welcome the consultation, but will my right hon. Friend make sure that it recognises the hidden deprivation in many coastal communities, such as mine in Sussex? We have a much larger elderly population with a dependence on social services and the health service, lower-skilled jobs and higher-needs children, and those things often get overlooked.

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to make that point, which is precisely one of the reasons why we need to conduct a fair funding review and why I have launched the consultation today. I encourage West Sussex council to input into the consultation and provide more data on the increased deprivation that sometimes happens in coastal communities so that we can get the formula right and help places such as West Sussex.

Tony Lloyd: The Secretary of State’s birthplace, Rochdale, has lost £176 million from local government spending, which has had a real impact on children’s services and adult social services. The reality is that, with local people already hard pressed, Rochdale’s capacity to raise new money by increasing council tax is not anything like as significant as it is in places like Surrey. Will the Secretary of State tell the House whether, under his fair funding review, the Rochdales will end up in the same advantageous positions as the Surreys?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will understand that the purpose of the review is that it is based on evidence, and I am not going to pre-empt that. We will take our time to get it right. If Rochdale has a case to make, it should certainly respond to the consultation I launched today. Rochdale is part of the business rates retention pilot, and I know it welcomes that. When we allocate new funding for things such as adult social care, other fundraising powers are taken into account.

John Stevenson: rose—

Martin Vickers: rose—

Justin Tomlinson: rose—

John Bercow: Ah yes, the three musketeers. I call Mr Justin Tomlinson.

Justin Tomlinson: With local authorities being given greater resources, powers and flexibility, what are the Government doing to share best practice to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent wisely?

Sajid Javid: We do a number of things to try to encourage efficiency. The four-year settlement essentially requires of each of the 97% of authorities that accepted it an efficiency deal with the Government, through which we want to be convinced that those authorities are doing all they can to spend taxpayers’ money more wisely. We also work with the Local Government Association to share practice, which I know much of the sector welcomes.

Steve McCabe: Social care in Birmingham is in crisis now, and it is facing an £800 million black hole. How is a Green Paper in the summer next year going to help people who need care now?

Sajid Javid: The hon. Gentleman will know that the extra funding that we have announced for social care this year and the extra flexibility in the adult social care precept is helping up and down the country, including in Birmingham. The Green Paper is essential to ensure that we have a longer-term, sustainable model that deals with the increased demand that we see and is something on which we can all rely.

Martin Vickers: The Secretary of State mentioned Lincolnshire among the places where there will be new business rate pilots; will he clarify whether that includes the two unitary authorities of North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire as well as the county council? With respect to the devolution deal for Lincolnshire that failed earlier this year, will he confirm that he would be prepared to look again at another proposal that would provide additional funds for coastal communities such as Cleethorpes and, indeed, Skegness?

Sajid Javid: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that the Lincolnshire pilot includes North East Lincolnshire and North Lincolnshire. I can also confirm that when we are looking into the fair funding review, starting with the consultation announced today, we will certainly consider the special needs of coastal communities.

Vicky Foxcroft: If the Secretary of State cannot persuade the Treasury to fund local government adequately, will he let me know which services he would personally advise councils to stop providing?

Sajid Javid: I want local authorities to decide for themselves how best to deliver local services and respond to the needs of the local community. It is my job to make sure that they are properly resourced and, with the measures we have taken this year, including the proposals I have announced today, that is exactly what they have: the resources that they need.

John Bercow: Let us hear about Cumbria. I call Mr John Stevenson.

John Stevenson: In certain circumstances, councils can still make substantial savings. In Cumbria, the Labour leadership on the council has failed to reach a devolution deal, which was an opportunity to review local structures that could have saved millions of pounds  for local services. Does the Secretary of State agree that fewer councillors and councils in Cumbria would benefit local services enormously?

Sajid Javid: My hon. Friend raises the issue of restructuring. Whether it is about changing council borders or the number of councillors, we will look at the proposals that are put to us. They must be bottom-up proposals, but we would look actively at any such proposals.

Rachael Maskell: On 8 March, the Chancellor announced a complete review of business rates, not just a redistribution. In places such as York, the valuation rates are so high that it is pushing businesses out of business. How will the Secretary of State’s process interchange with the Chancellor’s?

Sajid Javid: I remind the hon. Lady that when the revaluation happened, it came with £3.6 billion of transitional funding, which will help throughout the country. She is right to ask about some of the longer-term issues relating to the structure of business rates. It is for the Treasury to respond on that and certainly on the timing of any future review. The pilots announced today are part of a plan to make sure that, whatever their future structure, if business rates can be retained more locally, that will give local councils the right incentives.

Alex Norris: The Secretary of State did not decisively address the question of my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Mr Leslie), about the transition grant. Perhaps I will have more luck. If the transition grant is to remain, will the Department for Communities and Local Government—after two years of repeated requests from Nottingham—publish both the formula and the assumptions that sit behind it?

Sajid Javid: This year is the final year of the transition grant.

Kate Green: The Care Quality Commission’s local system review of adult social care in Trafford, which I received this week, says that investment in social care was not as much as it should be, while, at the same time, the council was trying to transform social care. Delayed transfers of care are very high in the borough. Will the Secretary of State say whether Trafford Council has been adequately funded both to maintain social care as required now and for transformation in the future?

Sajid Javid: Trafford is a very well run council, which can set examples for many others in that area, but, like many, it is having to deal with added pressures, including on social care. I know that it has certainly welcomed the additional funding that we announced earlier this year, and the flexibility that I announced this time last year.

Chris Williamson: In his statement, the Secretary of State said that local government is in the frontline of the country’s democracy, and yet he is systematically dismantling council services. The spending power of my own local authority of Derby has been reduced by £161 per head since 2010. The latest iteration  of that is that it is giving its libraries to the voluntary sector to run. Is the Secretary of State trying to finish the job that was started in the 1980s by his predecessor, Nick Ridley, who said that his idea of a good council was one that met once a year to dish out the contracts to the private sector?

Sajid Javid: Derby, like many local authorities, will be welcoming—I hope—the part of the settlement where we have announced additional funding. In the case of the hon. Gentleman’s local authority, Derby, it will be getting an additional 1.5% increase in its core spending power, which will lead to £2.7 million of additional spending, and it can use that on libraries as it wishes to look after local people’s needs.

Luciana Berger: Further to the very serious concerns raised by a number of my hon. Friends about cuts to children’s services—more pronounced in many areas because of the cuts by this Government and the fact that the weighting for deprivation was taken out of the local funding formula—Liverpool has seen a 9% increase in the number of looked-after children. Despite significant investment, we are facing a black hole to the tune of millions of pounds. How will the Secretary of State ensure that children in my constituency and across the country will be kept safe?

Sajid Javid: Liverpool, like many local authorities, is dealing with many pressures. That is why there is a lot there to help it. It already has one of the highest core spending powers per dwelling in the country and, from this set of proposals today, it will see an £8.7 million increase. On top of that, it is also part of the business rates retention pilot.

David Drew: I welcome the inclusion of Gloucestershire in the pilots, but will the Secretary of State ensure that the county’s MPs have the opportunity to look at the operation of the pilots as part of the discussions with the Department for Communities and Local Government, and will he say that these pilots do not preclude local government reorganisation if and when that comes to Gloucestershire?

Sajid Javid: No pilots preclude any kind of reorganisation. That is up to that local area to decide whether it is something it wants and to put a proposal to me. I know that the business rates pilot is very welcome in the Gloucestershire region; it will give more incentives to help local businesses. On top of that, today’s announcements will lead to an increase of £9.2 million of additional spending power for the local authority, which I know will be welcome.

POLICING

Nick Hurd: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on police funding.
Today, I have placed in the House the provisional police funding settlement, detailing how much money each police force in England and Wales will receive in 2018-19. This amounts to a year-on-year increase of up to £450 million across police forces for 2018-19. Taken together with the continued scope to improve police efficiency and the existence of £1.6 billion of police reserves, this represents a comprehensive settlement that makes sure that the police have the resources they need.
Before taking decisions on the settlement, I have spoken to every police force in England and Wales. I have listened to police and crime commissioners, chief constables and frontline officers, asking them to be completely upfront with me about the challenges that they face, and they were. I have been on patrol with officers on the streets of our city centres and I have visited firearms teams and projects to support the most vulnerable in society.
What is very clear to me is that demands on police forces are changing. Crimes traditionally measured by the independent Crime Survey for England and Wales have fallen by well over a third since 2010—I hope the House will welcome that—but, at the same time, it is clear that there is a shifting pattern of demand on the police. There are more victims of high harm—“hidden” crimes such as domestic abuse, modern slavery and child sexual exploitation—as well as more victims of cyber-crime coming forward. That willingness to come forward is to be welcomed, but it does put pressure on policing, to which we must be sensitive. Alongside this, terrorist attacks in London and Manchester have served as a reminder of the very real and changing threat that we face from terrorism. As a Government, we are acutely aware that the demands facing our police forces are considerable and changing. That is why this Government made the decision to protect police funding in the 2015 spending review and it is why, today, we are proposing a settlement for our police that will increase funding for police forces by a further £450 million in 2018-19.
Let me break this down. We propose that police forces get the same cash grant from the centre as in 2017-18. On top of that, we want to respond positively to requests from PCCs for more flexibility around the levels of police precept, so we propose empowering them to raise council tax contributions for local policing by £1 a month per household—£12 a year. If they all use this flexibility, that will result in a £270 million increase in the money that we invest as a society in our policing system.
Five attacks in London and Manchester darkened our spring and early summer. Thirty six people died, 10 of whom were children. The first responsibility of Government is to keep our country and its citizens safe. It is also to protect our way of life and the values that we hold dear. We are clear that we must ensure that counter-terrorism police have the resources they need to deal with the fast-changing and increasingly challenging  threat from terrorism. That is why we are also increasing the counter-terrorism policing budget by £50 million in 2018-19. That will mean that the counter-terrorism policing budget will go up by 7%, to at least £757 million next year.
We are also providing an extra £130 million for national priorities such as investment in digital technology and special grants to help forces with exceptional costs. I hope that the House will agree that it is right that the Government continue to provide crucial investment in police technology to make sure that the police have the modern digital infrastructure they need to protect the public, and it is right, surely, that we increase funding for the police special grant so that we can support the police with exceptional and unexpected costs such as the responses to this year’s terrorist attacks. However, to fully meet public expectations, the police cannot simply rely on this additional investment; that is just one part of the equation. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services is clear that there are more opportunities to increase productivity and efficiency, and so are we.
Forces have already achieved significant savings from better procurement since 2015, but there is a lot more to do. I want to see forces unlocking more than £100 million-worth of opportunities for commercial savings that we have helped them to identify. Forces must work together to increase their buying power by procuring goods together, rather than buying them in 43 different ways.
We want modern police forces to make the most of the opportunities that digital technology brings—better information and decisions, faster processes and more productive police officers. Striking research indicates that if all forces took advantage of mobile working as the best forces do, that would mean that an average officer could spend an extra hour a day on the frontline. Extrapolating from that, in theory this has the potential to free up the equivalent of 11,000 extra officers across England and Wales. The Government are committed to meeting the challenges of embracing digital technology and improving productivity, and we want policing to do the same.
The police still hold more than £1.6 billion in financial reserves, compared to £1.4 billion in 2011. The figure has gone up. Current reserves held represent 15% of annual police funding to police and crime commissioners. There are wide variations between forces with Gwent, for example, holding 42% and Northumbria holding 6%. We propose to improve transparency around reserves so that the public are clear whether they are being held for good reasons. That is why we will toughen the guidance on the information that police and crime commissioners must publish, and we will provide comparable national data on police and crime commissioner financial reserves. If the police make substantial progress on efficiency and productivity in 2018, I should signal that the Government intend to provide police and crime commissioners with a broadly similar settlement in 2019-20.
To support this process of reform, police forces will benefit from the £175 million police transformation fund in 2018-2019. Since its inception in 2016, the fund has already invested £220 million in policing projects, including £8.5 million for forces to better tackle modern slavery and £40 million to help the police to improve their response to serious and organised crime. It is clear  that the fund, led by police, is delivering real results and enabling forces to invest in transformation and digitisation for the future.
I end by recognising the exceptional attitude and hard work of our brave police forces around the country. We have listened to their concerns, and we have now proposed a funding settlement that will strengthen the police’s ability to fight crime and keep us all safe. Whether it is local forces or counter-terrorism capabilities, this is a comprehensive settlement to strengthen the police now and make forces fit for the future. We will now consult on the police grant report and I look forward to hearing views from across the House. I commend this statement to the House.

Diane Abbott: The test of the Government’s police funding proposals is the impact they will have on policing and counter-terrorism activity on the ground. The Minister can spin a convincing story here in the Chamber, but will what he is announcing really enable police forces to meet the challenge and reality of modern policing?
The Minister says that he has been listening to chief constables and police and crime commissioners. The Opposition would contend that he has not been listening hard enough. Is the Minister aware that we have seen the highest annual rise in police recorded crime for more than a decade? That includes an 18% rise in violent crime, a 26% rise in the murder rate, and a rise in knife and gun crime that is of particular concern to our major cities. Is he aware that the public are increasingly conscious that austerity is as damaging to policing as it is to other public services, because we cannot keep people safe on the cheap? Is he further aware that although the Government’s announcement that they are lifting the police pay cap is welcome, they have not funded it, so it must therefore put even more pressure on police budgets?
Is the Minister aware that police leaders all over the country are expressing their concern about the funding gap? He spoke about the scope for increasing police efficiency. Many forces including my force, the Metropolitan police, have done a great deal on police efficiency. He spoke about embracing digital technology. I recently met the chief constable of Greater Manchester police, who briefed me on the great work they are doing with digital technology. The Minister also mentioned reserves. I must say that it defeats many police leaders why the Government think that they can meet recurrent expenditure out of reserves.
All in all, the Opposition doubt whether this package—even including the Government’s proposals on the precept—will really meet the policing challenges of the 21st century. This is why the chief constable of Merseyside is warning that he does not have the resources to fight gun crime and the chief constable of Norfolk is warning of the reduction in the numbers of neighbourhood police officers. The chief constable of Lancashire has stated that people are “less safe” because of the money and people “taken out of policing”, and Northumbria’s chief constable has said:
“If the day of not being able to provide a professional service was here, I would say. It is not here, but it is getting very, very close.”
Is the Minister confident that his funding settlement will allow forces to remain at current staff levels? And can he give an undertaking that there will be no more cuts to police numbers?

Nick Hurd: I know that the right hon. Lady has been on a bit of a personal journey in her relationship with the police, having previously called for the police to be dismantled and replaced with our own machinery of class rule. We welcome her journey.
The right hon. Lady accuses me of not listening to the police, even though I have spoken to every single police force in England and Wales to fully understand the pressures they face. Before criticising the proposed settlement without investigating the details, I suggest that she speak to the PCCs, who have welcomed it. If she had done her homework, she would also be aware that our demand review was worked out in co-operation with the police-led review. That asked for a similar amount of new investment in 2018. This Government have listened to the police, and we are talking about an increase in investment of £450 million.
The right hon. Lady referred to us doing policing on the cheap. That will come as a bit of a surprise to the British taxpayer, given that as a society, we will be investing £13 billion in our police system next year. That is up from £11.9 billion in 2015-16. She chides me on reserves. Let us remind ourselves that reserves are public money sitting there, and the public we serve have the right to better information about how the police intend to spend that money for the public good.
The right hon. Lady talked about what the proposed settlement means for police officer numbers. She knows that the position of the Government is that our responsibility is to ensure—in close consultation with the police—that the police have the resources that they need. It is for local police and crime commissioners and local chiefs to determine how those resources are to be allocated. That feels like the right approach.

Theresa Villiers: In deploying the substantial new resources for counter-terrorism, does the Minister agree that the police should include a strong focus on cyber-crime because of the harm and disruption that terrorists could do with this form of activity?

Nick Hurd: I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point. If there is a powerful symbol of the change in the pattern of demand on policing, it is how much crime is now digitally enabled. We know from our constituencies how vulnerable our constituents are; they are many times more likely to be vulnerable to a crime online than they are on the street. That is part of the change in policing that we have to respond to, which is why we have just under £2 billion-worth of investment earmarked for cyber-security.

Gavin Newlands: I thank the Minister for prior sight of the statement.
Let me be charitable and start by welcoming one aspect of the statement, namely the £50 million increase in counter-terrorism resources. However, I echo entirely  the sentiment of the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that, given the huge pressure on the police service in England and Wales, a flat-cash core settlement from the Government is simply not enough. In doing so, I pay tribute to all police officers right across the UK for the hard and oftentimes dangerous work they do to keep us safe.
Just last week, the Scottish Government Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Derek Mackay, committed to increasing the police authority’s Government-allocated budget in real terms in 2018-19—a clear difference from the approach taken by this Government. In March 2017, there were 32 officers per 10,000 population in Scotland, compared with around 21 officers per 10,000 population in England and Wales—over one third more police officers per head keeping Scots safe.
In Scotland, public confidence in the police remains strong. Recorded crime is at a 42-year low, recidivism is at a 16-year low and police clear-up rates are the highest for 40 years. That is all while, in the words of Calum Steele, the general secretary of the Scottish Police Federation, UK Government cuts
“have put almost immeasurable financial stress”
on public services, including the police. He went on to highlight the fact that the police VAT relief could have been delivered with the stroke of a political pen, and that inaction put further unnecessary stress on police funding.
Following a sustained SNP campaign, we welcomed the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget that Police Scotland and the Scottish Fire and Rescue Service will be eligible to reclaim VAT in the future. However, in the spirit of today’s statement, will the Minister commit to requesting that the Chancellor also reimburse the £125 million already taken from frontline police services in Scotland so that it can be used for future reinvestment in Scottish policing?

Nick Hurd: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his reply. It is fair to say that there are mixed views across Scotland about the benefits of merging all the forces into one, and time will tell. However, I thank him for his welcome for the additional £50 million for counter-terrorism policing.
The hon. Gentleman talks about a flat-cash settlement. It is no such thing; we are talking about an increase of £450 million in investment and, at the local police level, a move, effectively, from flat cash to flat real.
The hon. Gentleman talks about cuts. Again, he is allowed his own opinions, but he is not allowed his own version of the facts. Overall, public investment in policing will grow from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion next year if these proposals are accepted by the House. That is not a cut in my language.

Stephen Hammond: As a London MP, may I start by paying tribute to the officers who do an extraordinary job of keeping us safe in London?
The Minister will know that, since 2015, the Met has received £2.5 billion of direct funding. There is more funding for London in today’s settlement, there is the opportunity to raise £43 million and there is an extra £50 million going into counter-terrorism. Does the Minister agree that it is time the Mayor started playing his part by protecting frontline numbers at police stations?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend. As a fellow London MP, I join him, as I am sure will all London MPs, in congratulating Met police officers on the work they do. He singled out the implications of this settlement for the London Met, which is rightly the best-resourced police force in the country in terms of numbers of police officers and funding per head.
My hon. Friend is right about his fundamental point, and it is one that the Labour party refuses to embrace. We operate a system in which accountability for police forces is devolved and rests with the police and crime commissioner or the Mayor. In London, that means the Mayor, and I would gently suggest to the Mayor that the combination of this increased investment, the reserves and the opportunities for greater efficiency means that what we need to see from him is action rather than more letters calling for more money.

Yvette Cooper: I would just ask the Policing Minister to confirm that a flat-cash grant to local police forces in fact means a real cut, given the level of inflation; that the money from central Government to police forces will be cut in real terms; and that while the counter-terror funding is welcome, the police chief Sara Thornton has warned:
“Fewer officers and police community support officers will cut off the intelligence that is so crucial to preventing attacks.”
I gently say to him that I am sure he must know in his heart of hearts that this is really not enough funding for police forces across the country, given the immense pressures they face. He and the Home Secretary will really need to make a much better case to the Chancellor; otherwise, they will be threatening the good work of police forces right across the country.

Nick Hurd: I hesitate to correct our very distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee—for whom I have great respect—and I welcome the welcome she has given to increased investment in counter-terrorism policing, but I do need to correct what she said. Once she has time to get into the details of the settlement, she will see that, in effect, we propose to move from flat cash at local police force area level to flat real, on Treasury assumptions. That is a significant shift. When she gets into the detail of it, she will see—[Interruption.] No, I am afraid that the cries from Opposition Front-Bench Members reflect the fact that they have not had time to read the statement or to understand the dynamics of the police funding settlement.
The right hon. Lady will know, or should know, that, in the context of the 2015 police funding settlement, there are two components to flat cash at local police level: one is the grant from the centre, and the other is the precept. In the context of increased precept, the cash from the centre would have fallen. It is not going to fall; it is going to be held flat. That means that, in terms of what police and crime commissioners would have expected for 2018-19, there is a £60 million upflip from keeping the grant from the centre flat, rather than reducing it, which is what would have happened under the 2015 settlement. It is complicated, but the right hon. Lady will see from the—[Interruption.] That is not being disingenuous; these are the facts.

Maria Miller: Hampshire’s constabulary, under the excellent leadership of Olivia Pinkney, does a fantastic job in meeting the changing policing needs my hon. Friend talked about. However,  what has not changed is the need for frontline policing. What can he do to make sure that more of the money he has talked about today gets to the frontline to increase the frontline policing our constituents so badly want to see?

Nick Hurd: I wholly endorse my right hon. Friend’s praise for the work of Olivia Pinkney, as the chief of Hampshire. The short answer to her question is that it is the local police and crime commissioner who is accountable for how resource is allocated. If it is the local view that more resources need to go into frontline police officers, that is something the police and crime commissioner has to respond to. Our duty is to make sure that police forces have the resources we think they need to do the job. How those resources are allocated at a local level is the responsibility of the democratically accountable police and crime commissioner.

Stephen Doughty: What an extraordinary exercise in spin. The statement says very clearly: “We propose that police forces get the same cash from the centre as in 2017-18”, so that is a real-terms cut from the centre. Will the Minister explain, given the additional pressures on South Wales police politically—with Cardiff being a capital city, and the pressures that that places on police in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan—whether we will be getting any additional support?

Nick Hurd: I hesitate to correct the hon. Gentleman, but I am afraid that, once those on the Labour Benches take a bit more time to understand how the police settlement actually works, they will know that the flat-cash settlement is a combination of precept and the grant from the centre. Taking those in combination, local police forces are going to move from a situation of flat cash to flat real. That is a significant change. If the hon. Gentleman bothers to go and talk to his local PCC, which I am sure he will, the PCC will explain it to him.

Giles Watling: I thank my hon. Friend for this very encouraging statement, particularly around flexibility in the police precept—an issue he knows I have been campaigning on for some time. However, will he confirm that the settlement will dramatically improve policing across Essex and particularly on my much overlooked sunshine coast at Clacton-on-Sea?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend and other Essex colleagues who were very forceful and constructive in coming to me with clear endorsements from police and crime commissioners across the system for the proposals on increased flexibility on precepts so that democratically accountable police and crime commissioners have the freedom to increase local taxes for local priorities. Roger Hirst, an excellent police and crime commissioner, has surveyed several thousand people in Essex. The results of that survey show that what we are proposing today will be extremely acceptable to the people of Essex because they want to see more investment in their policing, and that is what this settlement will deliver.

Tony Lloyd: Were I still a police and crime commissioner, I could not maintain the same level of policing on this budget, and the Minister must know that. The reality is that with inflationary pressures in general terms and the need to fund a legitimate police  rise, and, on top of that, the increasing demand for policing services, it simply is not possible to maintain public safety. He really has got to stand up and tell the public the truth. This is not a fair settlement.

Nick Hurd: Again, I hesitate to correct someone who knows what he is talking about, but the hon. Gentleman is talking as though this settlement is proposed in complete isolation. He and Labour Front Benchers are ignoring the fact that we work closely with police chiefs and the PCCs. The independent review that the PCCs and chiefs undertook, independently of Government, came to a very similar conclusion about what was needed in terms of funding for 2018-19. We have listened to them and delivered on that. It is their view that we are most interested in.

Lucy Frazer: I welcome more funding. Does the Minister, like me, recognise that Cambridgeshire has done an outstanding job in introducing 50 new recruits at the same time as making efficiencies?

Nick Hurd: I certainly join my hon. and learned Friend is supporting the work that Cambridgeshire has done, under excellent leadership. The evidence of that is in its HMIC rating of “good”. I know that it will welcome the increased investment and put that money to good use. Labour Members still do not seem to accept the maths; I know that that is not their strength. The maths says that an increase in investment of £450 million is in fact an increase.

David Hanson: I am sorry, but I need, for my simplistic mind, to have some clarity on the Minister’s statement that forces will get the same cash from the centre as in 2017-19. It may be that North Wales police’s precept goes up and my local council tax payers pay more in a hard-hit area, raising perhaps less than in Surrey, but at the same time we have, according to my chief constable, a 35% increase in crime, an 18% reduction in staff, and £30 million of savings already made. This settlement is simply not good enough. Speaking as someone who was Policing Minister when we had 21,000 more police officers than now, I say to the Minister that he needs to go back to the drawing board.

Nick Hurd: I would suggest that the former Policing Minister talk to his PCC, who will explain why a flat-cash grant from the centre is actually an improvement on what he or she was expecting. I will leave them to explain that. The right hon. Gentleman talks about reserves. I come back to the fundamental point. It is public money—£1.6 billion, a figure that has gone up since 2011. There is a very good reason for holding reserves, but we need more transparency and accountability about local police plans to use what is ultimately public money.

Kit Malthouse: I welcome the Minister’s announcement of £130 million for national priorities. Can he confirm that dealing with online child abuse is a national priority, and therefore that the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and the National Crime Agency will be receiving more resource to help them to combat this growing menace?

Nick Hurd: I can certainly agree that it is a national priority because of its increased prevalence in public life. It is something that matters a great deal. The Minister for Security, who is sitting alongside me, and I continue to make sure that the NCA is properly resourced to do that work.

Stella Creasy: Residents in Walthamstow are deeply perturbed following a rise in violent gang and drug-related crime, and the evidence from the Met commissioner herself that London is losing 3,000 police officers in the coming years. No mobile app is going to address that. It is individuals, not iPads, that people want to see on their streets. Can the Minister confirm that he will make available to the Met the money needed to keep those 3,000 police officers, or is “flat real” a crime against the English language?

Nick Hurd: No. I am a fellow London MP and I have spoken to the commissioner. Any PCCs or police chiefs making projections about losses of officer numbers in future are doing so on the basis that they do not know what the police funding settlement is. I expect and hope that when they look at what we are proposing today in terms of new investment—and it is new investment, given the continued scope for efficiencies and the level of reserves—they will see that there is no reason why any police force should be reducing officer numbers. However, it is ultimately a local decision.

Oliver Dowden: Community-based policing is the cornerstone of policing in Hertsmere and has a much valued role. I welcome the flexibility that the Minister has shown over the precept. However, what reassurance can he give me that community-based policing will be properly funded in small towns such as Potters Bar that might be disadvantaged relative to larger urban areas?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming an increase of £450 million in our policing system next year. That feeds down into an additional £6.2 million for Hertfordshire. I absolutely take his point about community policing. He needs to have that conversation with David Lloyd, the excellent police and crime commissioner.

Tom Brake: The Met commissioner and Sara Thornton have both said that tackling terrorism places a heavy burden on all aspects of policing. At the last general election, the Liberal Democrats called for the Government to spend £300 million extra on community policing. How much more does the Minister think will be spent on community policing to enable those officers to assist with tackling not only terrorism but antisocial behaviour, violent crime, and domestic violence?

Nick Hurd: Again, as a fellow London MP I say to the right hon. Gentleman that our role is to propose a settlement that we think is comprehensive in making sure that the police have the resources they need to do the job against the background of a shifting pattern in demand. It is a very complex environment. With regard to London, which has the best resourced police force in the country, I am satisfied, as a London MP, that the Met has the resources it needs. If the Mayor, as the policing and crime commissioner, disagrees with that,  he has his own resources to contribute as well, which he has been very reluctant to do. How those resources are allocated to some of the priorities that the right hon. Gentleman mentions is a decision for the Mayor and the Met on which they are both accountable to us as MPs and the constituents we serve.

Amanda Milling: I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement, particularly in giving PCCs more flexibility regarding the levels of the police precept—a measure that Staffordshire MPs and our police and crime commissioner, Matthew Ellis, have been calling for. Does he agree that giving police and crime commissioners more flexibility and power regarding the precept is ensuring that PCCs are making decisions about funding that they are democratically accountable for?

Nick Hurd: I could not agree more. One of the great reforms that we have made in policing is to make sure that there is much more local accountability on the performance of the police. I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming precept flexibility. She is quite right. Matthew Ellis and other police and crime commissioners have been very vocal in pressing for this because they want that flexibility in order to be able to deliver on their crime plans.

Vernon Coaker: What universe is the Minister living in? We have seen nearly 40% of police stations cut over the past seven years, thousands upon thousands of police officers cut, police community support officers cut, and police staff cut, and now we see a rise in violent crime. He refuses to acknowledge in his statement that it is proposed that police forces get the same cash from the centre as in 2017-18—a real-terms cut. That is what is going to happen to police forces like my own in Nottinghamshire and those up and down the country.

Nick Hurd: The universe I am living in is the real one, where public resources are tight and we have to proceed on an evidenced basis. Labour is giving the same old response: more money, more money—whoops, we ran out of money. It is the same as ever; it never changes. When Labour Members read the detail and understand how it works, they will see that we are proposing a combination of things that will result in an increase of £450 million in our investment in our policing system.

Andrew Selous: The Minister knows that I have set out my concerns about the capacity of Bedfordshire police in person with him, and in an Adjournment debate. I am grateful for the extra £2.9 million in the statement for Bedfordshire police, but will he explain more fully what he sees as the future of the force?

Nick Hurd: May I place on record my admiration for the tireless work that my hon. Friend has done over many years, through a cycle of many Policing Ministers, to advocate for a fairer funding settlement for Bedfordshire? I thank him for his welcome of today’s settlement, and he will note the increase in counter-terrorism policing. In the written ministerial statement, he will see information about the direction of travel of the fair funding review, which we think is most appropriately dealt with in the next spending review.

Helen Goodman: Before I ask my question, Mr Speaker, I wonder whether you have noticed that although the Minister handed out his statement to us, he did not hand out the table containing details of the settlement? Of course, he was hoping that we would not get it so that we would not notice that in Durham, for example, the change in cash is less than inflation and less than the pay rise. Therefore, there will be more cuts on top of our previous loss of 350 police officers.

Nick Hurd: The table to which the hon. Lady refers is attached to the written ministerial statement. [Interruption.] If that is not the case, I will investigate. I think Opposition Members are failing to distinguish between the oral statement and the laying of the grant formula, which has happened in parallel. They can find that table.
The hon. Lady is lucky to represent a constituency that is served by an outstanding police force. She will find that as a result of this settlement, if the PCC maximises precept flexibility, the cash increase for the force will be around £2.4 million. When Opposition Members get into the detail, they will see that the Government’s intention is to make sure that if local police and crime commissioners maximise their precept flexibility, forces will move from flat cash to flat real. Hon. Members will see that in the written statement.

John Bercow: Further to the observation with which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) prefaced her question, I think the correct position is that the table to which reference has been made, and which some Members have been ostentatiously brandishing, is electronically accessible but I am advised that it was not delivered either to the Library or to the Vote Office. I think it would help in these matters, particularly where complex formulae are involved, if the material could be available at the time of the commencement of the statement. I do not wish to dwell on the matter further. The Minister has said what he has said, and I thank him for saying it.
I call Mr Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax.

Richard Drax: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think I shall demand an urgent question if this continues.
I thank my hon. Friend for the increase in police funding, but I would be failing in my duty if I did not speak up for the funding of Dorset police, which have been underfunded for years. Does my hon. Friend agree that although things such as cyber-crime are taking police officers off the streets—the police are doing a wonderful job—we need to keep a uniformed presence on the ground, because that is where the deterrent is most effective and the intelligence is gathered?

Nick Hurd: Mr Speaker, may I place on record the fact that I note your earlier remarks?
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the changes that have occurred in society. I know for sure that my constituents are much more vulnerable to crime online than they are when they walk up and down Ruislip high street, and our policing needs to respond to that. I also understand the importance that our constituents attach to seeing the police on our streets. Getting the balance right around capabilities is the job that we have given to  police chiefs and democratically accountable local police and crime commissioners. I thank him for welcoming the increase in investment, and I am sure that he will make representations to his police and crime commissioner about the allocation of the additional resources.

Steve McCabe: Given the huge number of A and B council tax band properties in Birmingham, is not the reality of the proposals that the poorest people in Birmingham are going to pay the most for a declining police service, in what is becoming the worst-funded police force in the country?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman and I, along with other west midlands MPs, had a constructive conversation about the challenges of policing in the region. I simply do not see how local people will be worse off, as he is trying to suggest, from an increase of £450 million in investment in our police system next year, including an additional £9.5 million for the West Midlands police. I do not see how he can, with any real integrity, present that as downgrading the police force.

John Howell: I am sure the Minister will join me in congratulating Thames Valley police on their outstanding ranking in the police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy review. Will he also tell us how the funding settlement takes into account the needs of rural policing?

Nick Hurd: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point, and I join him in congratulating Thames Valley on its outstanding rating, which I know it takes great pride in. Rural policing is extremely important to many constituents. I come back to the central point, which is that we have devolved accountability and responsibility in the police system. The allocation of new resources and new investment in our policing is a conversation to be had with the local democratically elected police and crime commissioner. I know from personal conversation that they take the matter extremely seriously.

Matt Western: Will the Minister clarify that we are talking about a real-terms fixed amount for police and crime commissioners’ budgets, and that in reality we are taxing the most vulnerable more to pay for those services? The PCC is saying to me that the top-slicing will lead to a reduction in policing on our streets.

Nick Hurd: I encourage the hon. Gentleman to go back and talk to his PCC and police chief. The reality of our proposal is that we will increase investment in our police system by £450 million next year, and that we will work towards broadly the same kind of settlement in 2019-2020. That is a reflection of our recognition that demand on the police has changed and become more complex. We have to respond to that and invest accordingly. The basic rule is that public investment comes from two sources: extra borrowing and taxation. That is the choice in the real world in which we live.

Kemi Badenoch: rose—

John Bercow: Forgive me; I am uncertain. If the hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Mrs Badenoch) can confirm to me that she was present at the start of the statement—

Kemi Badenoch: indicated assent.

John Bercow: That is good enough for me—she will be heard.

Kemi Badenoch: I and several other Essex MPs requested more flexibility in the application of the precept, and we welcome the Minister’s statement. Does he agree that it is a good example of the Government devolving power to local communities and giving them more control over their own policing?

Nick Hurd: I do, and I will go further than that. The statement is an exercise in demonstrating that the Government have listened closely to the police. We have challenged the police, but we have listened to them, and our proposals are very similar to what they asked for. That fact has been ignored by Labour Members. We have listened to police and crime commissioners, who have said, “We would like to increase investment and be empowered to increase local investment in local priorities, and we would like more flexibility around the precept because we think that we can present that to our people.” They have tested that idea in surveys and encountered a very positive reaction from the public.

Paula Sherriff: The legacy of the Government’s cuts means that there are fewer officers per head than at any time on record. Can the Minister explain how that is making communities in my constituency safer?

Nick Hurd: Let me say two things to the hon. Lady. Let us attack the fake news that cuts are being made to police funding. The amount of public investment that we make, as a society, in our police system will have grown from £11.9 billion in 2015-16 to £13 billion next year if these proposals are accepted. I do not see how that can possibly be presented as a cut. When she has digested the news, I hope she will also welcome the increased investment for her area, and that she will discuss with her local police and crime commissioner how these additional resources can best be allocated for the benefit of her communities.

James Cartlidge: Of course, the money to pay for more police has to come from somewhere. I am happy to accept the principle that communities choosing to have more resource should pay more towards it, but the proviso must clearly be that they definitively see more warranted officers. Does my hon. Friend accept that in counties such as Suffolk, communities are clear that they want such officers to have a more visible presence in our villages and rural areas, as well as in our towns?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I completely understand his point. He has made it very strongly to me, and I know he will make it very strongly, as he has done, to the Suffolk police and crime commissioner and the chief constable if that is what he thinks his constituents need.
On my hon. Friend’s point about local taxation, I should say that no decision about increasing council tax precepts is taken lightly. This Government take a lot of pride in what we have done over many years in trying to keep council tax as low as possible, which is in stark contrast to Labour Members because it doubled under  their watch. Even in these difficult times, we feel the proposal of an additional £1 a month to get more investment in local policing is acceptable to the public, not least because PCCs have tested it.

Graham Jones: I do not believe the Minister’s argument is well served when there is an absence of facts in the discussion in this Chamber, and perhaps the information in the tables should have been provided. In Lancashire, we have rising crime and falling budgets. Nationally, we have lost 21,000 police officers. This is a simple question: in 2018-19, will there be more officers on the beat or fewer officers on the beat under this Government?

Nick Hurd: Again, the hon. Gentleman has not been listening. He will know that he needs to ask the police and crime commissioner that question. He can ask the Lancashire police and crime commissioner what he is going to do with the additional £6.1 million of investment proposed as a result of this settlement and, by the way, what he is doing with his reserves—currently worth 18% of net revenue, which is above the national average. I suggest the hon. Gentleman has such a conversation with his local police and crime commissioner.

Vicky Ford: Essex police officers do an excellent job—we are already delivering mobile working and joint working with the fire service—and it is certainly not sitting on a hidden stash of reserves, but we are one of the lowest funded forces in the country. Being able to raise the precept will deliver an extra £8.8 million, which is a helpful start. Next year, will the Minister look at fairer funding models, so that lean and efficient forces such as Essex police are not put at a disadvantage?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend, and I join her in congratulating Essex police on its work. Essex is excellently led at both PCC and chief constable level, and she is quite right to point out that it has a relatively low level of reserves, at 8% of net revenue compared with a national average of 15%. I can give her a twofold assurance. She will see in the statement that there is an intention to work towards broadly the same type of settlement in 2019-20, which will allow additional precept flexibility for Essex. We are also clear in the statement that the work on the so-called fair funding review is not lost; we just feel that the most appropriate point at which to revisit it is in the context of the next spending review.

Pat McFadden: What the Minister has done today is to pass the buck from the Government to local police and crime commissioners. He has done this at a time when the West Midlands force has lost £145 million in real terms in the past seven years, and 200 officers are no longer there to keep the public safe. Does the Minister not accept that if the tables were turned, and Conservative Members were in opposition facing a Government who had cut police numbers by over 20,000, they would be screaming about the injustice of it from the rooftops?

Nick Hurd: I am puzzled by the right hon. Gentleman’s attitude, because we are talking about an increase of investment for the West Midlands of £9.5 million for  2018-19, if the local police and crime commissioner maxes the precept flexibility. I cannot see how that can be a cut. He will also be aware that his force, which is excellently led, is relatively rich in terms of the reserves it holds. They are worth 20% of its net annual revenue, a number that has actually grown. He will have lots to raise in his conversations with his police and crime commissioner and chief constable about how this increased investment can benefit his community.

Wendy Morton: Today’s announcement is welcome news, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister has spoken to and listened extensively to police authorities and PCCs, including in the West Midlands. I am grateful to him for taking the time to enable me to raise some of the issues in my constituency regarding frontline policing and our Remembrance Day parades, which are so important to us. Does he agree that this extra investment and greater flexibility for police and crime commissioners will allow them to support all of our local communities, including those in my constituency?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend, and I again place on the record that she has been tireless in her advocacy on behalf of her constituents and in challenging me about police resources. I hope that she will welcome the additional investment in her police force, if the police and crime commissioner maximises the precept flexibility, and she will be looking forward to holding the PCC to account on how those resources are allocated.

Wes Streeting: Londoners are absolutely sick and tired of the spectacle of Tory MPs crying crocodile tears in their local papers about police station closures, and then coming to the House to cheerlead the cuts that make them necessary, but perhaps that is why London Tory MPs are an endangered species. Is not what the Minister has announced today the worst of all worlds? He is asking people to pay more in taxes, he is cutting support from central Government and he is still not giving the police the funding they need to tackle the crime that is blighting our communities.

Nick Hurd: Now the hon. Gentleman has got that entirely artificial rant out of his system, let us examine the facts. The proposals to close police stations are controversial in London, but they are the decisions not of the Government but of the democratically elected—as it happens, Labour—Mayor, and he is accountable for that. The Mayor has got most such decisions wrong, but I see he is changing many of them—he certainly is in my area—and I congratulate him on doing so. The fact of the matter is that the Metropolitan police, and I speak as a London MP, is relatively well resourced as compared with the rest of the system.

Wes Streeting: Get real!

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman tells me to get real, but the reality is that if we look at the performance of the London Met now as compared with 2008, there are—on the latest figures I have seen—100,000 fewer crime incidents and broadly the same number of police officers, and it is £700 million a year cheaper for it to run the policing system. In his world, those are cuts; in my world, they are efficiencies. The Met does a great job  and is on a journey to becoming even more efficient, and this funding settlement, with the increased investment for it, will help it to do so.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Policing Minister confirm that his settlement gives an extra £3.5 million to Northamptonshire police, which is an increase of 2.9% against a national average of 2.4%, and therefore represents further good news for a police force that is rated good for efficiency and has been busy recruiting new police officers?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that, but his is not the only force that is recruiting more police officers. His force also stands out as one of the most effective in maximising the benefits of collaboration with other blue light services. I thank him for welcoming the additional £3.5 million of investment in the local policing system, if the PCC maximises his precept flexibility.

Gerald Jones: Despite the dedicated work of officers in Gwent police and South Wales police—my constituency covers parts of both forces—the pressure on frontline policing is greater than it has been for many years. Under the heading “Additional Rule 1” in the documents published today, South Wales police will face a reduction of £13,416,000 and Gwent police, which is one of the smallest forces, will face a reduction of £917,247. That is a cut—a reduction. It is less money whichever way the Minister tries to dress it up. With the Office for National Statistics saying that visible policing is lower than it has been in many a year, how can the Minister justify the Government’s position that they are keeping this country safe?

Nick Hurd: Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to table 1 on the “Provisional change in total direct resource funding compared to 2017/18”—I apologise to Labour Members if they do not have it to hand—which tells me that, if the proposals are accepted, and they are out for consultation, South Wales will see an additional £6.7 million cash increase in investment; and Gwent, which we should note is sitting on reserves worth 42% of its income, will receive a cash increase of £3 million. Again, I do not see how that can be a cut in anyone’s language.

Matt Warman: Lincolnshire’s police and crime commissioner tells me that he considers the precept changes to be very good news, so I welcome the Minister’s statement. Can he confirm that the unique challenges faced by large, rural and sparsely populated counties, such as Lincolnshire, will be addressed by additional money for digital transformation?

Nick Hurd: Lincolnshire police are a good example of a force that feels under a great deal of pressure at the moment, so I am glad that the PCC has welcomed the settlement, as most have. I am sure that Labour MPs, when they talk to their PCCs and chiefs, will recognise that this settlement is better than many of them expected. My hon. Friend’s point about digital transformation is absolutely fundamental, and Lincolnshire police are a leader in that regard. I remember sitting around a table  in their police headquarters listening to a young officer talking about how mobile working and the platform that has been developed there has transformed the force’s efficiency and productivity. I repeat my previous statement about the amount of police officers’ time that can saved by embracing the full digital potential. The Government are determined to support the police in achieving that.

Kevan Jones: The Minister has visited Durham’s outstanding police force. He has said that he is listening to chiefs and to police and crime commissioners. Both Ron Hogg, the Labour PCC, and Mike Barton, the chief constable, have raised with him a particular problem that Durham has, which is that 50% of our properties are in band A, so relying on precept to cover the hole that has developed as a result of cuts to central funding is not a long-term solution for Durham. With pay increases and inflation, it will mean a cut in policing in Durham. Before he tells me that they have to become more efficient and work better, let me tell him that they have done all that and been rewarded for it. Can he suggest what the long-term solution is for forces, such as Durham’s, that have that problem?

Nick Hurd: I know that the hon. Gentleman has not seen the table, but it shows that if the proposals are accepted and the PCC does what we are empowering him to do, Durham will receive a cash increase of £2.4 million next year. I suggest that he goes back to Mike and Ron and asks whether that is helpful, because I suspect that the answer will be yes.

Peter Aldous: I look forward to studying the Minister’s proposals in detail. Suffolk constabulary is an efficient force, but it is historically underfunded and faces a whole variety of modern-day pressures, such as responding so quickly to the incident at RAF Mildenhall yesterday. Can the Minister confirm that he will continue to work with the PCC, Tim Passmore, and Suffolk MPs to put the funding of Suffolk police on a sustainable, long-term footing?

Nick Hurd: Yes, I can give that undertaking, and I am more than happy to maintain that conversation with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) as well. I have visited Suffolk police, as I have visited Durham police, and had conversations with Suffolk MPs. I know that the settlement is a step on a journey, which is why we are keen to signal the direction of travel for 2019-20 in the written statement, but the facts of the matter remain: this represents an increase of £450 million in investment in our policing system in England and Wales. I hope that colleagues across the House, once they have digested that, will welcome it.

Dan Carden: The stark reality in Merseyside is that we have lost 1,000 police officers and £100 million from our budget, and we have rising crime—violent crime and gun crime. Merseyside MPs have lobbied Ministers time and again to deal with the financial problems in our police force. Our chief constable, Andy Cooke, has described the force as being “stretched to the limits” in a way he has never seen before. Are the Government really proud of their record on protecting British citizens on our streets?

Nick Hurd: We are proud that crime has fallen by a third on our watch. I recognise—because I have visited the force and spoken to Andy personally—that Merseyside police, like many police forces across the country, clearly feel very stretched at the moment. That is why, having done this review, we have gone back, looked at the settlement, listened to the police and the PCCs and come forward with proposals that will increase investment in the policing system by £450 million, including an additional £5.2 million for Merseyside next year, if the PCC maximises his flexibility.

Paul Scully: The Mayor of London took the decision to cut the policing budget by £38 million this year, while stockpiling reserves that are equivalent to 10% of funding and overseeing an increase in serious crime. I welcome the statement, which will allow the Mayor to reverse that decision and allow the increase for Metropolitan police funding by up to £43 million. Does the Minister agree that this shows that with the Conservatives people get good results and sound management, and that with Labour they get neither?

Nick Hurd: I agree. Labour MPs are chuntering about tax increases, but when they call for more investment, where do they think it will come from? I was accused earlier of passing the buck. The reality—I know that the Labour party does not like it—is that we have changed the model so that the public can see clearer lines of responsibility and accountability for the performance of their police service, and in London that means the Mayor. Instead of sitting in his bunker writing letters asking for more money, the Mayor should get out there and tell us what he is doing to implement his crime plan.

Jack Dromey: Two thousand West Midlands police officers have gone. Crime is up by 15%. There have been nine stabbings and shootings in Erdington in recent months. Pensioners are afraid to go out at night. Shopkeepers are saying that people are increasingly afraid to come out and shop at night. They all had hoped that their voice would be heard by the Government. A flat cash settlement delivering £9.5 million will come nowhere near the £22 million that West Midlands police need in order to stand still. That will mean further reductions in police numbers and betraying the first duty of any Government, which is the safety and security of their citizens.

Nick Hurd: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is welcoming the additional £9.5 million of investment or not. We had a very sensible and constructive conversation with the rest of the west midlands MPs, and I think that he knows in his heart of hearts that when he goes back to speak with his chief and his police and crime commissioner, they will tell him that it is a better settlement than they expected.

Tom Pursglove: I welcome the Minister’s statement, his engagement with police and crime commissioners across the country and the policing innovation we are seeing in Northamptonshire. Is he, like me, pleased that this Government did not adopt the approach of cutting the policing budget by 10%, which Opposition Members were arguing for not that long ago?

Nick Hurd: That certainly was recommended by a previous shadow Home Secretary—he was more moderate than the current shadow Home Secretary, who is on record as saying that she wanted to dismantle the police. I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming the settlement, and I am sure that he will have constructive conversations with his PCC about how the additional £3.5 million will be spent next year in the best interests of his constituents.

Lilian Greenwood: My constituents have seen what this Government have meant for local policing: fewer officers on their streets and crime on the rise. Will the Minister confirm that even though he must know that council tax is highly regressive, he is asking those same constituents, many of whom are low paid or on fixed incomes, to pay more while he will not provide a penny more and central Government grant is falling in real terms?

Nick Hurd: I hesitate to challenge a local MP, but the fact of the matter is that Nottinghamshire police are one of a number of forces that intend to increase officer numbers next year. The hon. Lady talks about tax, and of course this is a hugely sensitive issue, but we should not lose sight of the fact—I have not said this before—that it is not mandatory for PCCs to impose this increase if they feel that it is not the right thing to do; it is about flexibility. In reality, because many of them have tested it—she will have her own view in Nottingham as to whether an additional £1 a month for investment in local policing is an acceptable proposition—each area will have a different view on that.

Clive Efford: I have never heard so many Tories come into the Chamber and welcome a council tax increase. The look on the Minister’s face while he has been standing at the Dispatch Box—if he walked down the street, he would be stopped and searched. He has one hand in the pocket of every single citizen in this country, and he is telling them that they will see an increase in funding for their police, but they have to pay more tax for it. That is exactly what he is doing, and he is making the poorest in our communities pay for it. The Metropolitan police have been cut by £1 billion since 2010, under the Tories and the Liberal Democrats. Is he suggesting that we put a precept on council tax to backfill that hole? Crime is increasing and police numbers are down to the lowest they have been in 20 years. What is he going to do about that?

Nick Hurd: The hon. Gentleman simply articulates the problem with the Labour party: year after year and decade after decade, the answer is always more and more money with no understanding of where it comes from. There is no such thing as Government money—it is taxpayers’ money. The only way to increase investment in policing, which is what we all want to do, is to either increase borrowing or increase taxation. As he will see, this settlement increases investment from the centre by £130 million. We are enabling locally accountable police and crime commissioners to go to their public and say, “Will you give us an extra £1 a month to invest more in our local policing?” I suspect the answer will be yes.

Holly Lynch: Further to my hon. Friend’s point, the Minister will be well aware of the really significant variation in the money that can be  raised through the precept, which often means that some of the forces with the greatest need are able to raise the least. What is the Minister planning to do to help to reconcile some of those imbalances, so we can meet demand?

Nick Hurd: I welcome the hon. Lady’s contribution. She is extremely thoughtful on police matters and has done great work over the years on the “Protect the protectors” agenda. I hope she welcomes the additional £8.9 million that her force should see next year. She raises a thoughtful point. It is a complex system. There are some forces whose ability to raise precept is low, or whose historic precept levels are low. That often reflects historic political decisions, which I cannot do anything about at the moment. She will notice that this has been structured in terms of an additional £12 rather than percentages, which has been the historical route. There is a reason for that: it advantages slightly those forces that have low precepts.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister was kind enough to acknowledge the bravery and hard work of police officers right throughout this country, but far from looking at the financial settlement for next year, serving police officers in the Police Service of Northern Ireland have yet to learn of their pay award this year. Given the political difficulties in Northern Ireland, will the Minister at least engage with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and stand up for policemen right across this country?

Nick Hurd: I am certainly happy to speak to the Secretary of State about that.

POINTS OF ORDER

Vernon Coaker: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wonder whether you can help the House. We have just had a statement on the police grant assessment and the figures for individual forces are now available. On the local government financial settlement, however, I have just been to the Vote Office and there are no figures for individual authorities. No doubt Members will be contacted and asked about these matters. In the past, the figures have always been available at the same time as the settlement. Mr Speaker, could you ask those on the Treasury Bench whether there is any way they can speed this up, so we can at least get them before Christmas? I do not want to have a situation where all of us are being asked about this but we have no idea what it means for our individual authorities.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point of order and for giving the Chair advance notice of his intention to raise it. As I recall it, in respect of the local government finance settlement and the statement thereon, the Secretary of State did not refer to any laid documents. I appreciate that hon. Members may customarily expect documents on these matters—that has tended to be the case, but this is a matter for decision by Ministers. I am sure the concerns, expressed by the hon. Gentleman in his point of order and by other Members in the course of the exchanges, will have been heard on the Treasury Bench.
I would just add, if I may, one point in underlining the significance of the hon. Gentleman’s point. It would, in respect of local government finance in particular, be helpful to Members in their attempted interrogation if the documents were available before the start of the statement. The reason why I say that “in particular” in respect of these matters is that it was long ago observed by many people to me when I started in my political activity that only three people in history were ever thought to have understood local government finance. In that sense, it was considered to be analogous to the situation appertaining to the Schleswig-Holstein question, about which it was also said that only three people had ever understood: one had since died, the second had gone mad and the third had forgotten the answer to the question. It is therefore useful to have more material rather than less in relation to these matters.

Dan Carden: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: I think the hon. Gentleman wants the Second Deputy Chairman to respond to his point of order.

Dan Carden: I want you, Mr Speaker.

John Bercow: Such charm! Oh, go on. Let us hear the hon. Gentleman.

Dan Carden: I am grateful, Mr Speaker. Once again, HMP Liverpool Prison in Walton in my constituency is subject to media reports following its most recent inspection in September this year. Perhaps most damning of all, the report states:
“We saw clear evidence that local prison managers had sought help from regional and national management to improve conditions they knew to be unacceptable…but had met with little response.”
This morning, the Justice Secretary promised an action plan would be forthcoming in the new year. That is too little, too late. We need answers to how HMP Liverpool was allowed to sink into such disrepair and squalor in the first place. This cannot be brushed under the carpet. This is a failure of the state of the highest magnitude. The Government and Ministers must be accountable to this House, so I ask for your guidance, Mr Speaker, on how I can get answers to what happened at HMP Liverpool.

John Bercow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. The short answer is that he would certainly have an opportunity at Business questions on Thursday to raise this matter with the Leader of the House if he is so inclined. There are various other means by which matters can be raised and the hon. Gentleman will be familiar with the arsenal of weapons available to a Back-Bench Member. I completely understand his concern. If he is asking me, “Is there at least one method of raising it before we rise for the Christmas recess?” the answer is yes and there may prove to be more.

BILLS PRESENTED

Pension Benefits (Ill Health) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
John Mann presented a Bill to require pension providers to make lump sum payments and other pension benefits available to people with ill health, including people with a terminal diagnosis, prior to such people reaching minimum pension age; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 27 April 2018, and to be printed (Bill 143).

Access to Radiotherapy Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Tim Farron, supported by Mr Jim Cunningham, Norman Lamb, Stephen McPartland, Layla Moran, Grahame Morris and Tom Brake, presented a Bill to make provision to improve access to radiotherapy treatment in England; to define access in terms of the time that patients are required to travel to places providing treatment; to specify 45 minutes as the maximum time patients are to travel; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 May 2018, and to be printed (Bill 144).

EMERGENCY RESPONSE DRIVERS (PROTECTIONS)

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Henry Bellingham: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide protection for drivers of emergency vehicles responding to emergencies from civil liability and criminal prosecution in specified circumstances; to make related provision about criminal proceedings and sentencing; and for connected purposes.
I want to look at the case of PC Richard Jeffery, a Norfolk officer who, on a dark night at the end of his shift was driving back towards the police station when on the radio came through a report of a stolen car being driven erratically with no lights. He intercepted the vehicle and followed it. He followed his training to the letter: he kept a sensible distance and did not tailgate the vehicle. The vehicle carried on being driven erratically and after a mile or so it crashed. Tragically, the driver was killed. He was four times over the limit and it was a stolen vehicle.
PC Richard Jeffery was suspended and investigated for gross misconduct. Understandably, and as one would expect, the case was referred to the Crown Prosecution Service. After three months, it decided there was no case to answer. The family of the victim appealed the decision to the CPS, however, and the case went on for several more months, but still there was no case to answer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission then investigated the accusation of gross misconduct for nearly two years. Throughout that time, PC Richard Jeffrey was suspended, Norfolk constabulary lost a long-serving and experienced officer, and at the end of it, he was completely exonerated.
The key point is that the CPS and the IPCC could not look at the extra training and expertise of the police officer—they could not apply the test of a competent and careful trained response driver; they could judge him only by the “competent and careful driver” standard, which is the standard applied to us all. This officer faced a dilemma. He could easily have said, “It’s the end of a long day, I won’t take the risk, I’m going back to the police station”. What would have then happened if this car, which was being driven by a driver four times over the limit with broken lights and on a wet road, had gone off the road and killed several people? He would have had that on his conscience forever, so of course his training kicked in, as one would expect.
There have been many other such cases recently, but I will pick up on just a few. A colleague in the House this afternoon brought to my attention the case of a constituent of his who was a highly trained and decorated officer. He was actually the pursuit commander and tactical adviser during an incident involving a moped that was being driven highly erratically. In fact, the driver was almost deliberately trying to goad the police. The police followed. He was in the second car, but he was the commander. Tragically, the moped rider went off the road and was killed. The officer was suspended, as one would expect—one does not necessarily object to that. Eighteen months on, however, he had been forbidden to work in any capacity and, quite staggeringly, forbidden to leave his home for more than three days. There is still no end to this saga—the case is ongoing—so I cannot comment in more detail.
It seems that there is a scourge of mopeds being used for crimes, and often moped riders know that if they take their helmet off, they have more chance of getting away. Two months ago in Kent—I am glad that some of my hon. Friends from Kent are here today—a moped was being driven highly erratically. It was actually doing wheelies and going up the wrong side of a dual carriageway. Four police vehicles were involved. The police officers concerned decided to take action and follow the moped. The moped driver had an accident, went flying off and injured himself—not critically, although it was thought he had severe head injuries. The police officer driving the car closest to the incident was suspended and then investigated for grievous bodily harm and dangerous driving. The case is ongoing. In fact, the driver recovered from his head injuries very quickly, and two weeks on was committing further crimes, while the police officer, who was doing his duty, ended up being suspended. I cannot comment further because the case is sub judice.
I want to look at cases that are no longer in the court arena and have been decided—these are on the public record. A firearms officer in Hampshire was deployed to a domestic violence incident on new year’s eve in 2015. While progressing to the incident, he used all his training to drive highly professionally, correctly and properly; he went through a couple of red lights and was involved in a slight injury collision with a member of the public. In the end, the “competent and careful driver” test was applied—neither the CPS nor the IPCC could consider his training and expertise—and he was charged with dangerous driving, and nearly two years later the trial took place. I am pleased to say that he was acquitted, but throughout that time Hampshire was without its most senior firearms officer.
There have been other cases. There was one in Merseyside involving a firearms officer and another involving a PC Steventon in Yorkshire. The latter was in a car pursuing a vehicle that had been observed at a petrol station. The individual was suspected of burglary and other offences. The police officer gave chase, and a long time later was charged. The rationale was that, although he had an exemption for breaking the speed limit and going through a traffic signal, he did not have an exemption for the alleged dangerous driving. He was suspended for 18 months, therefore, went to court and was acquitted. Afterwards, the judge said:
“After all you and your family have been through it would be an affront to natural justice if you were to face another internal disciplinary procedure. I hope that will not be the case”
and he expressed his hope that he leave a free man.
There are many other cases, but what runs through them is the significant impact they have on the officers, who are doing their duty to and serving the public, and the forces. There are, however, guidelines. In a letter to one of my colleagues, a Home Office Minister wrote: “There are guidelines in place, and obviously the idea is to reduce the risks associated with this activity”—pursuit—“and to set out when it is in the public interest for a prosecution to take place. Police should be able, without fear of prosecution, to go ahead and carry out their duties”. The guidelines are obviously not working. Time and again, the IPCC takes the view—perhaps while wrapped up in the emotion and under a lot of pressure from families —that it should take action, but it says, “We won’t deal with it, we’ll let the courts look at it”. That, I think, is a cop out. It is quite wrong that these officers are being prosecuted in this way.
My Bill would simply make it clear that the expertise and training of officers can be taken into consideration. In other words, the test applied would not be the universal test but a specific test for these emergency vehicle drivers. Some of my colleagues have said, “Is this a charter for the police acting irresponsibly, going berserk and getting carried away?” It is categorically not. Obviously, they would have to follow their training, the training manual and their professional judgment, and nor would there be an exemption for aggravating factors—for example, if the police officer were over the limit, recovering from a sickness or driving recklessly. The good news is that the training of police drivers has now been consolidated across the entire country through the road policing driving training programme, so we have standard procedures across the country. It is time for the law to be changed. I know that the Minister is sympathetic. This simple change would tilt the balance in favour of these professional, highly skilled public servants.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Sir Henry Bellingham, Bob Blackman, Jack Lopresti, Stephen Twigg, Robert Halfon, Steve McCabe, Sir Oliver Heald, Chris Bryant, Sir Roger Gale, Leo Docherty, Peter Aldous and James Cartlidge present the Bill.
Sir Henry Bellingham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 16 March 2018, and to be printed (Bill 145).

FINANCE (NO. 2) BILL

(Clauses 8, 33, 40 and 41, Schedules 9 and 11 and certain new Clauses and Schedules)

[2nd Allocated Day]

Further considered in Committee
[Mrs Eleanor Laing in the Chair]
New Clause 6

Equality impact analyses of provisions of this Act

‘(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,
(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must give a separate analysis in relation to the following matters—
(a) income tax (in sections 1 and 3 to 6),
(b) employment (in sections 7 to 10),
(c) disguised remuneration (in sections 11 and 12 and Schedules 1 and 2),
(d) pension schemes (in section 13 and Schedule 3),
(e) investments (in sections 14 to 17 and Schedules 4 to 5),
(f) corporation tax and other aspects of business taxation (in sections 2, 19 to 32, 36 and 37 and Schedules 7 and 8),
(g) the bank levy (in section 33 and Schedule 9),
(h) settlements (in section 35 and Schedule 10),
(i) stamp duty land tax (in sections 40 and 41 and Schedule 11),
(j) air passenger duty (in section 43),
(k) vehicle excise duty (in section 44), and
(l) tobacco products duty (in section 45).
(4) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.”—(Dawn Butler.)
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effects of the provisions of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis
Brought up, and read the First time.

Dawn Butler: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 7—Equality impact analyses of provisions of this Act (No. 2)—
‘(1) The Office for Budget Responsibility must review the equality impact of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income,
(b) the impact of those provisions on people with protected characteristics (within the meaning of the Equality Act 2010),
(c) the impact of those provisions on the Treasury’s compliance with the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and
(d) the impact of those provisions on equality in different parts of the United Kingdom and different regions of England.
(3) A review under this section must give a separate analysis in relation to the following matters—
(a) income tax (in sections 1 and 3 to 6),
(b) employment (in sections 7 to 10),
(c) disguised remuneration (in sections 11 and 12 and Schedules 1 and 2),
(d) pension schemes (in section 13 and Schedule 3),
(e) investments (in sections 14 to 17 and Schedules 4 to 5),
(f) corporation tax and other aspects of business taxation (in sections 2, 19 to 32, 36 and 37 and Schedules 7 and 8),
(g) the bank levy (in section 33 and Schedule 9),
(h) settlements (in section 35 and Schedule 10),
(i) stamp duty land tax (in sections 40 and 41 and Schedule 11),
(j) air passenger duty (in section 43),
(k) vehicle excise duty (in section 44), and
(l) tobacco products duty (in section 45).
(4) In this section—
“parts of the United Kingdom” means—
(a) England,
(b) Scotland,
(c) Wales, and
(d) Northern Ireland;
“regions of England” has the same meaning as that used by the Office for National Statistics.
(5) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must lay before the House of Commons the report of the review under this section as soon as practicable after its completion.” .
This new clause requires the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out a review of the effects of the provisions of the Bill on equality in relation to households with different levels of income, people with protected characteristics, the Treasury’s public sector equality duty and on a regional basis.

Dawn Butler: New clause 6 stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and those of other Members on both sides of the House. The aim of both new clauses is basically to help the Government. We want them to set an example to every Department and public sector organisation by fulfilling their own obligation under the public sector equality duty and publishing a meaningful equality impact assessment. The equality duty covers nine protected  characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.
The Prime Minister says that she understands the problems faced by members of protected groups and that her Government are committed to tackling inequality in the ways set out in the equality duty, but one thing confuses me. If she understands all that, why does she allow her policies to undermine and hurt women and other groups with protected characteristics? Such “words over deeds” undermine people’s trust in politics and politicians.
How can I be sure that the Prime Minister knows these problems so well? There have been two stand-out moments. The first was in 2010, when the Prime Minister said:
“there are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending.”
The second was when she said, on the steps of No. 10, that she wanted to tackle the “burning injustices” in our society. But all that she has done is make things worse. She has added fuel to the fire, and those injustices now burn brighter than ever. The Chancellor said that this Budget would be full of new opportunities—for whom? He failed to address the position of women born in the 1950s, violence against women and girls, the crisis in social care, falling wages, and a social security system that is leaving millions of children in poverty.
I am sure that the Minister will disagree with some of what I am saying, but let me challenge him. This is his opportunity—his moment—to carry out a comprehensive equality impact assessment, publish it, and prove me wrong.

Jim Cunningham: One of the issues that my hon. Friend has not mentioned—although I am sure that she will come to it—is the underfunding of women’s refuges.

Dawn Butler: My hon. Friend is right: I will indeed come to that issue.
As we approach Christmas, I ask the Minister to consider the impact that the Government’s policies are currently having. More than 128,000 children will be in temporary accommodation over Christmas, women’s refuges—as my hon. Friend has just said—are in crisis, and universal credit will leave people penniless and homeless over the Christmas period.

Mel Stride: Nonsense.

Dawn Butler: It is not nonsense. I challenge the Minister to sit in one of my surgeries and hear that it is not nonsense.
The Government have made £28 billion-worth of cuts affecting 3.7 million disabled people, and the additional caring responsibilities have fallen on the shoulders of women. It is the same with the cuts in social services—women take up the slack—and the pay cap, which hurts women more than men. Indeed, 86% of the Government’s cuts are falling on women. Labour Members are not the  only people who are saying that. In June, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights said that the Government’s changes adversely affected
“women, children, persons with disabilities, low-income families and families with two or more children.”
If the United Nations can see that, and if Labour Members can all see it, why can the Government not see it and do something about it? The best policies are evidence-based policies.
How, for instance, have the Government’s policies affected people of colour? Research carried out by the Equality and Human Rights Commission showed that average losses in black households amount to about 5% of net income, more than double the figure in white households. It also concluded that lone parents lose about 15% of their net income—on average, £1 in every £6—compared with other families, who lose from nothing to 8% depending on how wealthy they are. How have the Government’s policies affected people working on low incomes? There are 8.9 million people in working households who live in poverty. That is a record to be ashamed of. It has been seven years! Even Scrooge would have seen the error of his ways by now.
The Government are failing, even on their own terms, to promote equality, fight discrimination in all its forms and introduce transparency. Equality audits should be carried out at the development stage of any policy. Once a policy has been implemented, there should be post-legislative scrutiny. That is good government. The Government should not be scared of impact assessments; they should embrace them, which is exactly what a Labour Government will do. They should not be denying that there is a problem. We hear that type of rhetoric from the Prime Minister every Wednesday. We tell her that there is a crisis in the NHS”; she says, “Oh no there isn’t”, and we say, “Oh yes there is.” It is like the Christmas panto every Wednesday, and not in a good way.
Having a detailed understanding of how policy choices exacerbate or eliminate inequality at every stage of the policy-making process is the key to tackling burning injustices and producing good policies. It is no good saying things that one does not mean. The only impact assessments in the 2017 Budget documents are the tax information and impact notes, also known as TINs. They contain only a sentence or two about equality impacts. I say to the Minister, and to the Chancellor, “Be less like the TIN man, and have a heart.” Let us do more than TINs. Let us have a full comprehensive equality impact assessment and publish it, so that we can make this country a fairer place for the many and not the few.
If the Chancellor and the Minister will not listen to me, or to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Women’s Budget Group, the Runnymede Trust or the House of Commons Library, perhaps they will listen to the Women and Equalities Committee, which was set up by the Prime Minister with a member of the Conservative party in the Chair. It has said that greater transparency is essential in order for the Government to demonstrate that they have fulfilled their obligations, and recommended that evaluations should be commissioned for the equality analyses accompanying all future spending rounds and  fiscal events. I hope that all members of that Committee will join us in the Aye Lobby today. After all, it was their work and their report that helped to generate  this debate.
Before the Minister responds, I want to help him by dealing with some of the arguments that we expect to hear from him. The Government say that it is not possible to do a full impact assessment, but I say, in full pantomime muster, “Oh yes it is!” The Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust have done just that. One Minister misquoted what the IFS said in 2011. In fact, the IFS went on to describe ways in which the Government could fulfil their obligations with very little effort, and with just the will and the heart to do so. The Government have said that it is not possible to analyse the impact of changes in tax and benefits on women and men in couples, and I say again, “Oh yes it is!”
Analysis can assume income is shared equally; may I highlight one problem that Labour solved and the Conservatives have now recreated? The decision to pay tax credits to the main carer, rather than the main earner, was a decision made by a Labour Government in 1997, and it was based on evidence—evidence that money paid to women was more likely to be spent on children than money paid to men. Universal credit has just reversed all of that. If this Government conducted proper impact assessments, they would know this stuff.

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend is making an interesting point. I am sure she agrees that, given that this Government and the previous Government talked about £12 billion in cuts, and therefore universal credit must fit that target, that is why they will not conduct an impact study.

Dawn Butler: Absolutely. My hon. Friend makes a powerful statement, and it points to the crux of the new clauses: if the Government would only do impact assessments even as the policy goes forward, they would be able to say, “Okay, this isn’t working: it’s hurting; it’s damaging people. Let’s do something different.” But, in their arrogance, they refuse to do that.
The House of Commons Library uses a different calculation in its assessments. I admit that some of the assessments are not straightforward, but that does not mean that they should not be done; after all, they are the Government. Most recently, the Government have argued that the equality impact analysis carried out by the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust does not take into account the impact of increases to the national living wage or spending on services that benefit women such as health, education, childcare and social care. I say again: “Oh yes it does.” Their report, “Intersecting Inequalities”, includes the impact of both the national living wage and changes to spending on a wide range of services. When the cuts to services are added, the impact is more severe. The Treasury says that individual Departments are responsible for the equality impacts of their own policies; yes they are, but the Treasury should also be responsible for publishing the equality impact of policies, since it sets the overall budget limits, and any impact assessments carried out should be available for everyone to see, and not hidden away.
The Government’s arguments are just excuses, allowing them to evade accountability for the impact of their policies. That shows a lack of commitment to tackling  the major inequalities in our society. This Government are so evasive: we are still awaiting a response to the cross-party letter sent to the Minister for Women and Equalities on 29 November highlighting major concerns on this very issue.
If we were in Scotland or Wales, we would be legally obligated to carry out and publish equality impact assessments. We are the mother of all Parliaments and we should be leading the way. What is wrong with getting the facts and making policy based on them? That is sensible and it is right; people outside this place will not understand what the reluctance is all about.
The Minister will probably talk in his response about “due regard”, but what does “due regard” mean? There is some legal definition of due regard. The courts have said that it means sufficient information, so even on a lower bar of “due regard” this Government and their Departments are still failing, as they tend to produce superficial equality impact assessments.
I concede that more needs to be done to establish robust analysis, but if Scotland and Wales can do it, why cannot we? Current analysis should be taken as a starting point for Government action, not an excuse for inaction, so I call upon the Chancellor to give the country a Christmas present and to commit to doing things properly.
As my Christmas gift to the Government, here are three things as a start in that process. First, they should consider the impact of their policies at all stages of the legislative process. That means the Government examining the differential and intersectional impact of their policies and, if necessary, changing course to ensure equality of outcome. Secondly, they should work with organisations such as the Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust to produce analysis with a high level of detail. Thirdly, they should commission the Office for Budget Responsibility to carry out an independent review into the effects of the provisions of this Bill.
Everyone in this House can help tackle the burning injustices that blight our country today by voting for new clauses 6 and 7.

Sarah Champion: I rise to speak in support of new clauses 6 and 7, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler).
Under the public sector equality duty, all public bodies, including the Treasury, are obliged to have “due regard” to the impact of their policies on equality. Yet, once again, this Government have refused to carry out a meaningful equality audit of their Budget.
I am grateful that the House of Commons Library has done research, and it has consistently shown that 86% of the burden of Tory tax and benefit changes since 2010 has fallen on the shoulders of women. Today, I will tell the stories of women impacted by this, and show how they are bearing the brunt of failed Tory austerity.
Women make up two thirds of public sector workers so have suffered most from the Tories’ pay cap. Women have to struggle with more caring responsibilities due to the ever-increasing gap in social care funding. Some 54,000 women a year are forced out of their jobs through maternity discrimination. Women in my constituency of Rotherham earn 11.9% less on average  than men. And, shamefully, 94 women and 90 children are, on a typical day, turned away from refuges due to lack of space, according to Women’s Aid.
Let me talk about some specific cases. I want to talk about Martha, a single mother. A recent report by the Runnymede Trust and the Women’s Budget Group shows that by 2020 single mothers like Martha will have experienced an average drop in living standards of 18% since 2010. As a part-time NHS worker, Martha’s real pay has been slashed under the Tories. NHS staff have suffered a 14% real-terms pay cut since 2010. With inflation at a near six-year high of 3.1%, more and more women like Martha are struggling to put food on their table. Martha is not just about managing; Martha is only just about surviving.
The Women’s Budget Group and the Runnymede Trust analysis shows that black employed women, like Martha, are set to lose the most from cuts and changes to universal credit—around £1,500 a year. These changes include cutting the first child premium, which came into effect this year and would have been worth £545 a year to Martha.

Jim Cunningham: A good example of the burden being been put on women is through tax adjustments. In the last Government and this one, women have lost £14 billion in that way. Another good example is Sure Start. Women cannot get out to work because there are no Sure Start facilities.

That is the biggest frustration. We need the Government to audit all their policies and start to recognise the trends when certain groups are disproportionately impacted. We all pay our taxes and we all want the same services, but surely the best thing for the economic growth of this country is for everyone to be able to reach their economic potential. That is surely the best way to get this country back on its feet economically.
According to research by the Child Poverty Action Group, 61% of parents working part time who wanted to work more hours said that the cost of childcare was a barrier, and no wonder, when Government cuts mean that there are now 1,240 fewer Sure Starts than there were in 2010. Yet there was no mention of childcare in the recent Budget. When 41% of women in work have part-time jobs, compared with just 13% of men, it is clear how these policies have a disproportionate impact on women. An equality impact assessment would put a spotlight on those inequalities and on the need for action—but of course we can only assume that that is why the Government refuse to carry out such assessments.
It is not just younger women who are being failed by Tory economics. Martha’s aunt, Rita, was born in 1956. She has worked all her adult life in an old people’s home. The Tories moved the goalposts for Rita by accelerating the rise in the women’s state pension age. Rita has done the right thing. She has been planning her retirement for years, and she is exhausted. Now, she has to work years longer than planned and years longer than she is physically able to. Rita is hoping for a healthy retirement, but, like many people of her age, she is deeply concerned that the £6 billion that has been  taken out of social care since 2010 will make it impossible for her to have a healthy, secure retirement. More than 1 million of our elderly people are not receiving the care that they need. Where is the reassurance for Rita when we have a Chancellor who does not even mention social care in the Budget? In a leaked 2010 letter to the then Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said:
“There are real risks that women, ethnic minorities, disabled people and older people will be disproportionately affected by proposed cuts to public spending”.
Well, the right hon. Lady, now the Prime Minister, was not wrong. From tax credit cuts to the crisis in social care budgets, it is women who have consistently been hit the hardest by Tory austerity.
I am immensely proud of Labour’s manifesto commitment to gender audit all our policies and legislate for their impact on women before their implementation. It is shameful that we have to keep challenging the Government to do their legal duty and ensure that their policies are not disproportionately impacting on one particular group. There is virtually no one on the Tory Benches at the moment—and not one woman—so I have to question whether the Government are serious about equality. But if they are serious about equality, and economic equality in particular, they must take action. The simplest way for them to do that would be to support new clauses 6 and 7.

Stella Creasy: I rise to make my case to the five Conservative MPs on the Government Benches today. Inequality is an incredibly expensive business for everyone. I am pleased to see five fellow feminists sitting among the many of us on these Benches—

Mel Stride: Eight.

Stella Creasy: Goodness! The Minister says eight, but I can assure him that we have a good many more than eight feminists in total on this side of the House if he would ever like to test us. Our policies and our manifesto certainly speak to that fact.
The case that I want to make to the five men on the Tory Benches, given that gender inequality and equality impact assessments can sometimes be seen as special-interest issues, is that everything we are doing today is in everyone’s interest. Inequality costs us all dear. It holds everybody back in our society. Indeed, feminism is not about women; it is about the fact that power is unequally balanced in society so that 51% of those in our communities miss out on achieving their potential. That is what is behind new clauses 6 and 7. Good data help to drive good decisions. It is also good for Governments to follow their own policies. We have a public sector equality duty in this country, but the fact that the Government are not following it themselves makes it much harder for them to force other people to do so. Ultimately, we are here today to make the case that Britain will be better when we know more about the conditions that we face and about what impact policies are having.
Let me start with that cold, hard economic argument, because I am sure that the Minister, who once proclaimed his feminist credentials, already knows this, but I am not sure whether it has yet been put on the record.  Bridging the gender gap would generate £150 billion in GDP by 2025. The economy has been struggling with a productivity problem for decades, and there is nothing stronger or faster that we could do to address that than to ensure that everybody in our society is able to realise their potential, but we should do more to help women in particular. We need to tackle the barriers and the discrimination they face that means they do not have that level playing field. Indeed, studies show the strong correlation between diversity and economic growth, so those who think that this is special pleading do not understand the maths behind the case Labour is making today. I would argue that the reason why they do not understand the maths is that we do not do the calculations, which is why it is so important to get the data.
Data is a good thing. It leads to difficult conversations. It makes us ask why, after the Equal Pay Act was passed in 1970, we still do not have equal pay in this country. I was born after that Act came into effect, but if the current policy continues, I will be dead before we have parity. That harms us all, because the 14% pay gap between men and women is not stagnating, but growing. There will be women in our constituencies who are missing out on equal pay because we are not acting as a country. Having this kind of data helps us to ask why that is and whether Government policy is helping to minimise the gap or exacerbate it.
This is not just about gender. The gap is much worse for women from ethic minority communities. The pay gap is 26% for Pakistani and Bangladeshi women and 24% for black African women. This is also not just about ethnicity, because the same applies for disability and age. Only 36% of women in the constituencies of the Conservative male Members here will be getting their full state pension. When those women come to see those Members about the Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign, they are coming because they have been living with poverty for decades. They are asking for help to make things right, because they do not want to be dependent on the state. They want a level playing field, but historical inequality in our society has held them back, and it is holding us back now. Having the data helps us to understand where that is happening and why. It would show us whether Government policies—individual Budgets—are going to make it easier to tackle that inequality, so that fewer women will come to constituency surgeries asking for a referral to a food bank, or whether they will make things worse.
If the Government want to tackle inequality, they need to know that data also tells us that this Budget, and the Budgets of previous years, are causing more problems. I do not doubt the sincerity of the five Conservative Members here or that they do want to tackle inequality in our society, but when I look at this Budget I do doubt whether they are going to be able to do that. This Budget will hit women 10 times as hard it will hit men—13 times for women from an ethnic minority background. Going back to the equal pay issue, 43% of people in society do not earn enough to benefit from raising the personal income tax threshold, and 66% are women. We have unequal pay in our society, so 73% of the people who will benefit from changing the higher rate threshold will be male. Having the data and then looking at what is being done with tax and benefit policies will help us to understand just how much further this Budget is moving the goalposts for women and ethnic minorities. This applies to other  policies, too. Corporation tax changes disproportionately benefit men, because we still do not have parity in the boardroom, in enterprise or in the number of women shareholders.
The lack of data also leads to bad decision making. As my colleagues have already set out, this Government have not done any equality impact assessments to understand just how far the goalposts are moving in getting to this House’s shared aim of an equal society. Tax information and information notes dismiss the issue and do not help Ministers to make good decisions. I am sure that the Minister, with his feminist soul, wants to make good decisions, but those assessments claim that there is little or no impact. Indeed, we do not even have TIINs for all the policies that we know have a differential impact such as excise duty rates or fuel duty giveaways, because we live in an unequal society.
The lack of data also means that Ministers simply cannot come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that any concerns we may have about the differential impact of individual tax and benefit changes can be offset by the impact of other policies. If we do not know the impact of one policy, how can it be said that that can be offset by another? Even if we are concerned that men have received a windfall from Budgets for several years, it is simply not good enough for Ministers to try to tell us that women are being compensated through public services, because they cannot provide the analysis to show us that either case is true. Indeed, when we look at the impact of public service cuts—surprise, surprise—women, ethnic minorities and the disabled tend to be disproportionately hit again.
As I said at the start, it is also a matter of following our own laws. The public sector equality duty came into force in this country in 2011. It is a legal requirement, and it has driven some of these difficult conversations, whether in the Bank of England or in the BBC. It helps us to challenge everyone to do more to unlock the potential of every member of our society by reducing barriers and breaking down the discrimination that means, 40-plus years on, we still do not have equal pay.
If the Government themselves are not upholding their duties, what hope do we have in asking other organisations to do so? It is important to recognise that the legal duty is not passive. It is a duty not just to manage inequality but to do something about it. It is a duty to know the numbers before we make a decision so that we do not make things worse, as this Budget clearly does, and it is an ongoing duty that cannot be delegated. Ministers cannot leave it to a civil servant in the back office; they have to take direct responsibility. Crucially, it is a duty that, once a problem has been identified, the Government have to act, and not having the resources is no excuse for not acting.
The arguments Ministers are making against calculating the figures are not just about the practicalities, but they are completely surmountable. As the Women’s Budget Group, the Fawcett Society and the Institute for Fiscal Studies have shown, it is perfectly possible to make these calculations, and it is worth doing because it would help the Government to make better decisions. That it is possible to do it both for individuals and for households is important because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) said, single parents, who tend to be women, are disproportionately hit by these changes. Even if the Minister were to  quibble about calculating the figures across households, we could certainly see the impact we are having on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
The reason why we have called it “lady data” is to try to help Ministers understand what they are missing and why it matters, but in truth this is everyone’s data. Getting this right and having that information would help us to make better decisions and would help us to understand why it will take us 100 years from today to have parity, so that women who are still struggling with unequal pay—including women in the communities of the Members to whom I have referred—can have some confidence that they may still live to see that wonderful day when everyone in this society is treated equally and so that people from ethnic minority backgrounds and disabled people living in poverty, and a poverty that is getting worse, can have some confidence that the Government are not ignoring them but understand where the challenges are and are considering a Budget that will do something about it.
Frankly, when we see the analyses that are being done, we know why the Government oppose new clauses 6 and 7. They do not want to do the maths because the figures tell the ugly truth about the inequality we have in Britain and its stubborn supporters, who unfortunately sit on the Government Benches. Jane Addams said:
“Social advance depends as much upon the process through which it is secured as upon the result itself.”
We cannot take the journey to a more prosperous, more successful and more egalitarian Britain if we do not know the direction of travel. The numbers will give us the direction of travel, but it is the political will that will give us the way forward.
Ministers should not dismiss this case as special pleading but should look at the economic argument for why tackling gender inequality matters and vote accordingly today to put Britain on a better path, because everyone will be richer for it.

Laura Pidcock: As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), Labour's shadow Minister for Women and Equalities, said, new clause 6 would require the Chancellor to carry out and publish a review of the Bill’s effect on equality. In short, it touches on the fundamental difference between the Labour party and this failing Government, whose policies work for only the richest few. New clause 6 seeks to shed light on the truth of who benefits from Government choices and who does not.
In order to change society, we must understand society; and in order to have a fully functioning democracy, we need transparency. People in my constituency deserve to know what is going on, not least because this Government are failing the country on so many levels that it is hard to know where to start.
New clause 6 refers to equality in relation to
“households at different levels of income”.
Real pay has fallen and is now lower than it was in 2010. Too many jobs that have been created are insecure and entrench poverty through low pay. These employment models fuel inequality, and certain parts of the country, particularly in my north-east region and my constituency, have a disproportionate number of workers on these  contracts, where there has been a long-term move towards casualisation. This poverty is not just about worklessness; 60% of people in poverty live in a UK household where someone is in work. Many professionals have joined the queues at food banks, where, nationally, 1.4 million emergency food parcels were handed out last year—that has to be a perfect symbol of a failed state, does it not—yet the Government just don’t get it.
Britain has the fourth highest level of inequality in Europe and the immediate future does not look any brighter, thanks to Government policies. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has predicted that inequality is likely to increase. The shocking facts are that 3.7 million children are living in poverty in the UK, 1.7 million of them in severe poverty—and this in the sixth richest economy in the world! Conservative Members scoff at us for not applauding the increase in jobs and scowl  at us for not subscribing to their mantra that work is the best way out of poverty, but this is because we live in the 21st century, where work for many is short-term, low-paid, precarious and far away, and therefore exacerbates the poverty that many in my community face. Of course worklessness is not the solution; secure, good quality, higher paid jobs are the solution.
The review proposed in new clause 6 is comprehensive and inclusive, addressing economic inequality from a number of often intersecting viewpoints, including from a regional perspective. The national figures are appalling, but in the north-east things are even worse. Let us be clear: in our region and in my constituency we have been left behind. While we have been crying out for investment born of an industrial strategy that gives us our fair share, we have in fact got a long-standing neglect that acts like a scar on the landscape. These policies have real and devastating effects: in North West Durham 21% of children live in poverty.
What does that actually mean? It means children coming to school with empty bellies; and parents, usually women, reducing their portions or skipping meals to make sure their children get enough—worse, the children know their parents are doing this. It is about the daily grind of people having bills through their door and that sinking feeling that they cannot pay them, and having the fear of the sanctions—further punishments for poverty—and all the while people are working extremely hard for that existence. The latest figures show that households in the north-east have £100 pounds less to spend a week than those in the south-east do.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the limit on child benefit now increases poverty? Does she recall that one of the Government’s slogans used to be, “Let’s make work pay”? Well, it does not pay because poverty wages are being paid.

Laura Pidcock: Absolutely. We are seeing lots of inadequacies in the universal credit system, which completely smash out of the water the idea that work pays under the Conservative Government.
Even taking account of housing costs, which I know take a huge slice of wages from people in the south-east, in the north-east we are still £84 a week worse off. The disparities in investment in my constituency create a vicious circle. We cannot attract the large-scale business investment that we desperately need without the  infrastructure and the skilled people, and as much as Derwentside College in my constituency is a beacon of excellence in the education it provides, it is like every other further education establishment in the country in that it has a dwindling budget with which to educate the future skilled workforce that we need.

Ian Mearns: My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. There are very good FE colleges all over the north-east of England, with my local one in Gateshead being a very good example, but I am sad to say that when young people are leaving those colleges with skills, they are doing what generations of Geordies have done: leave to come south for jobs because there is not the investment in the north-east of England.

Laura Pidcock: It is heartbreaking. Of course we want to keep as many of those brilliant young people in my constituency as possible, with the education they have received being put back into infrastructure and a rich economy, but the long-term employment just is not there.
New clause 6 would also address gender inequality, because it is women in my constituency and right across the country who have borne the brunt of inequality, as most women always do. Women, particularly working-class women, suffer structural inequality throughout their lives. On average, women earn less than men, have lower incomes over their lifetime and are more likely to be living in poverty. As has been mentioned, women are therefore less likely than men to benefit from cuts to income tax and are more likely to lose out because of cuts to social security benefits and public services.
In conclusion, I urge Members to support new clause 6 and I call on the Government to carry out equality impact assessments so that my constituents can see, in black and white, the hard facts and the truth. If the Government are so proud of their achievements, why are they not shouting them from the rooftops so that they can receive full credit? Why not let everybody know what Government policy has achieved? Unfortunately, Opposition Members know that the facts will tell the truth and reveal that the Government do not care one jot about my region and that they are happy for wages to stagnate and for people to experience poorer lives with all the consequences that that entails. People in my constituency work extremely hard, and they definitely deserve much better. Please support the new clause so that we can see what the Government are actually doing to our region.

Bim Afolami: I rise to respond to some of the points that have been made by Opposition Members. I shall start with what the hon. Member for North West Durham (Laura Pidcock) said about the Government, or the Conservative party, talking about how work is the best route out of poverty. Do correct me if I have misquoted you, but you went on to say that the work in our economy at the moment exacerbates poverty. You felt that it is currently not the best route out of poverty. Is that correct?

Laura Pidcock: Sorry, but is this a debate or a questions session?

Bim Afolami: I shall continue.

Laura Pidcock: rose—

Albert Owen: Order. Is the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) referring to me, because he is saying “you”? He should refer to the hon. Lady, and if he wishes to take an intervention, he must sit down.

Bim Afolami: I give way to the hon. Member for North West Durham.

Laura Pidcock: In my speech I was talking about precarious work. In debates on universal credit, Government Members talk about it getting people into work faster, but we know that the system is for people who are in work and that they receive a top-up payment because their pay is low. I meet many people in my constituency, including social care workers who do not get paid for their mileage. They are working, say, 14 hours a day and getting paid for six hours. That entrenches their poverty because they do not have a proper contract and they are not being paid a fair rate, but they have all the outgoings that they would have if they were not receiving state help.

Bim Afolami: Whether it is in respect of the Bill, the new clause or what we are discussing now, the important thing is that it is of course the Government’s intention to create more better-paying jobs. That is what the Treasury team and everybody across Government strives to do every single day. That is not to say that every single person in this country is currently at the level of prosperity we would like, but that is the aim of all the activity that is coming out of the Bill and out of the Treasury.

Stella Creasy: If that is the aim, what data are the Government collecting to be sure that they are achieving it and to find out whether there are any variations? That is what we are talking about. The issue is not the policy, but whether it is having an impact and whether we can understand that impact. Does the hon. Gentleman understand that?

Bim Afolami: I do indeed understand that. There is currently so much data, much of which has already been talked about by Opposition Members, on regional disparities, and on disparities of race and age and between urban and rural areas. There is so much data, so Government policy must aim to bear it all in mind, which is what Ministers do.

Sarah Champion: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity in taking interventions. We need to hear a few facts. The data that he is talking about, which we are citing as evidence of why this is so important, is being collected by charities and the House of Commons Library. With respect to both the duty of care and the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, this work should be done by the Government. That is what we are asking for.

Bim Afolami: If the hon. Lady will permit me, I will make a bit of progress and then I will respond to her remarks in the fullness of my speech.
It is important to make my next point in relation to new clause 6 clear. We have heard Opposition Members say that women, or certain members of ethnic minorities, are more likely to be lower paid than other members  of society. By taking the lowest paid people out of tax and increasing the national living wage, we are benefiting those groups of people who might suffer from low earnings. In addition—

Ian Mearns: When Government Members talk about, and celebrate, the fact that people are being taken out of income tax altogether, what they are doing is celebrating an economy of low pay. They are celebrating an economy where people are being paid so little that they are just above, or just at, the income tax threshold. For me, that underlines what it is actually like out there in constituencies such as mine in Gateshead.

Bim Afolami: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken. It is not celebrating low pay to say that people who are currently earning lower amounts should take home more of their money. That is not a celebration; it is about making their lives, every day and every week, that bit easier. It is worth saying that taking the lowest paid people out of tax and raising the national living wage is having significant benefits for many of the people—

Stella Creasy: The hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. I think he may have missed one of the points that we are making. For example, when the Government raise the tax threshold, 66% of the people who do not benefit—because they do not earn enough—are women. Seventy three per cent of the people who benefit from a rise in the higher income rate threshold are men. What he is talking about and what we are talking about are two different things. We are talking about the differential impact of policy, and asking the Government to do the sums that are currently being done in the charitable sector, so that we can make better policy. Surely he wants those sorts of policies to have an equal benefit, but at the moment they do not, because we do not have equal pay.

Bim Afolami: I believe that all policy in this area, or, frankly, in any area, should be set to make sure that we are trying to generate as innovative, dynamic and successful an economy as possible. The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) mentioned cutting corporation tax in her speech. She thought that that effectively benefited more men than women because men are more likely to be shareholders than women. The way we should deal with that, in my view, is to encourage more women to be entrepreneurs. We should work to make sure that women have access to being shareholders and that women have more ability to reap the benefits of that—

Jim McMahon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bim Afolami: If I may, I would like to make a bit of progress.
As the evidence has shown, cutting corporation tax increases, rather than decreases, the tax take going to the Exchequer. If that shows this country to be a better and more dynamic place in which to set up and start a business, that will benefit all people in this country. That is the approach that the Government should take. If we want to improve the performance of the British economy and if there happen to be more men than  women who are shareholders, it is no answer to say that we should therefore not take action to improve the activity of the British economy.

Stella Creasy: I have a very simple question for the hon. Gentleman, although I appreciate that he is getting some assistance from the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng): can he produce the data to prove that men and women will benefit equally from the changes to corporation tax?

Bim Afolami: I do not have the data now to be able to respond to the hon. Lady. What I do know is that Conservative Members will never take lectures from the Labour party; we have our second female Prime Minister, the gender pay gap is the lowest on record, and this Government have done more for childcare and support for families than the Labour Government ever did. The idea that this Government should take lectures on this issue from Labour Members is disgraceful.

Laura Pidcock: The hon. Gentleman is celebrating two female Prime Ministers somehow drastically pulling every single woman out of poverty. That is not the answer. We need structural change and the evidence to tell us whether women are equal, not the tokenism of two female leaders. Margaret Thatcher did not do much to pull women in my community out of poverty.

Bim Afolami: rose—

Dawn Butler: Before the hon. Gentleman responds, will he give way again?

Bim Afolami: I shall.

Dawn Butler: I am sure that the hon. Members around the hon. Gentleman are trying to get him to stop talking, but Labour Members do not mind. It is actually nice to see you go through your journey of trying to put the pieces together and understand the problems we are talking about. You cannot justify any of your statements because you have no data.

Albert Owen: Order. Too much “you”. The hon. Lady is an experienced Member of the House and she should set an example.

Dawn Butler: My apologies, Mr Owen. I am getting carried away in my enthusiasm to try to educate the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami). The Government cannot justify anything you are saying, because you have no data to back it up. We are having to rely on data from voluntary groups and charities, which do an amazing job of crunching the numbers and looking at the intersectionality of the Government’s policies. But in order for you to make your statements, you need to have the data.

Albert Owen: Order. That was a very long intervention with too many “yous”. Let us get used to the parliamentary language and have a proper debate.

Bim Afolami: I will conclude my remarks by saying that it is important when we talk about these issues—in this House or outside—always to remember that improving the performance of the health service, the economy or  anything relating to Government policy will benefit everybody in this country, if we make the right judgments and the right policy.

Jim McMahon: Well, well, well. When it comes to naivety, there is a very fine line; it can often be endearing before it eventually becomes quite offensive. And I did find the speech of the hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Bim Afolami) offensive. It began in the spirit of naivety. I could see that he was nervous at the beginning of his contribution—quite rightly, it turned out, towards the end—because he did not have the data that was being presented.
The debate went on and Labour Members presented the data, but rather than actually taking account of it, the hon. Gentleman continued, in a very odd way, to try to defend what most reasonable people would say is a quite indefensible position. He was essentially saying, “Listen—if men are doing okay, surely women will eventually do okay too.” I am not sure whether the solution he came up with to the shareholder conundrum is for women to find wealthy husbands who are shareholders, as if that might somehow lift them out of poverty and allow them to be the beneficiaries of the cuts in corporation tax.

Ian Mearns: We have discovered a new phenomenon: it is called trickle-down gendernomics. It is going to be the resolution to all the problems of poverty and the disparity in earnings between men and women in all our communities up and down the country—I don’t think so.

Jim McMahon: That is a fair point.

Stella Creasy: Obviously, having had two women Prime Ministers, that is quite enough women earning a serious level of income—the 33 million other women in this country do not deserve equal care and attention. This data would help us find out just how much inequality there is and what we could do about it. Does my hon. Friend agree that facts should override fiction?

Jim McMahon: I think that where the hon. Gentleman was trying to get to—I will be generous—was that these things are symbolic and that symbolism in politics is quite important. However, to me, it is more symbolic that 46% of women have to skip a meal so that their children can eat. It is quite symbolic that women continue to be underpaid compared with men, and it is symbolic that the decisions the Government are taking disproportionately affect women on low incomes—the people who are trying to keep households together and who are raising the next generation of young people, who, because of this Government, will not have better life chances than the generation that went before them.

Chris Stephens: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is also important that it was women politicians and women workers who campaigned and argued for the Equal Pay Act 1970? Will he also confirm that outstanding equal pay cases are at an all-time high?

Jim McMahon: That is absolutely right, but let us be honest: the Government are not in listening mode. They do not want to take into account what could have been constructive new clauses—new clauses 6 and 7. What they want to do is to maintain their stubbornness and  their silence. They think that if they ignore this issue, there is not a problem in society, when we know that there is.
In terms of the pressures on income that many people in our communities face, the new clauses go beyond just gender inequality, and talk about disability and race as well. The Prime Minister has been clear that she wants to address the discrepancy in terms of opportunity, incomes, housing and the criminal justice system with members of the ethnic communities in this country. However, when we look at the way the Government have approached the Budget, the evidence just does not support that. If we look at the public sector, for instance, little effort is being made to widen participation in public sector jobs to members of the ethnic minority communities. In my constituency, a third of residents are predominantly Pakistani and Bangladeshi, but they are nowhere near properly reflected in the make-up of public services. In towns such as Oldham, where industry has, by and large, been hollowed out, the public sector is the place where people go for decent-quality, well-paid and, previously, quite secure employment. If people are restricted from entering those jobs, for different reasons, that has a material impact on their ability to lift themselves out of poverty, to get on in life and to do well.
When the coalition Government came into power, it was interesting that one of their very first acts of many that devastated towns such as Oldham was to cut the funding that went to Remploy. Remploy had a network of factories across this country that used to support people into supported employment. Those were not sympathy jobs, in the way I heard people say they were at the time; they were real jobs, and they produced goods of quality that people wanted to buy. In Bardsley, in my constituency, that meant a full factory employing 114 people making windows that they would sell to industry, housing associations and the private market.

Sarah Champion: The reason we want the equality impact assessment is not handouts; we are looking for a level playing field so that everybody can reach their economic potential and Government policies are not hampering in that. Does my hon. Friend agree?

Jim McMahon: That is absolutely right. This is really odd from my point of view, because I have come from local government. In local government, when people are setting their annual budget, they have a legal responsibility to make sure that these audits are carried out and that proper consideration is given to the impact on protected groups. The Government now seem to believe that legislation passed in this House is good enough for one part of the public sector but not the other, but I am afraid that that just does not hold water. A lot of public bodies—whether it is the NHS, local government, a police force or anywhere else in the public sector—will be looking at the Government and thinking that there is a lot of hypocrisy in the laws passed here, which the Government do not seem to apply to themselves.

Justin Tomlinson: Specifically on Remploy, yes, there were some great practices there, but the Government made that decision because very few were able to progress into work, and we wanted to create more opportunities so that more people can  benefit. That is partly why we have seen an extra 600,000 disabled people find work, which is a great thing.

Jim McMahon: How dare the hon. Gentleman suggest that the 114 people working in that factory in Oldham were not in proper employment? They were producing, they were manufacturing, they were selling, and people wanted to buy the goods because they were of a high quality. It was not a handout or a giveaway. They were not sympathy cases: they were people who were working hard in a supported environment to produce something that people wanted to buy.
In some ways, this is the problem that we face. When the problem is so disconnected and not part of the everyday experience of Conservative Members, it is easy for them to ignore it. I cannot ignore it. When I go back to Oldham West and Royton, it is my community. I see the impact of cuts, of austerity, and of suppressed wages. I see the hollowing out of our employment structure. All right, people at the top are doing very well, and there are more jobs at the bottom, but the middle has been completely taken out. People talk about an economy that will support people into better employment, while 8 million adults and children are living in poverty in working households.
That is the economy we have in this country, because the routes of progression in employment simply do not exist. We are happy to be the bargain basement employment capital of Europe in this new relationship—let us be honest. Providing that the bankers and the insurance services are all right, we really do not care what it means for the rest of the economy as long as there are people working at Costa Coffee to serve the coffee in the morning. That is what the Government really believe. It is okay hon. Members shaking their heads, but where has the investment in our key industries gone? We need investment in manufacturing and engineering, creating jobs that produce things that people want to buy, pay decent wages, and support people into a lifelong career so at the end of it they have a decent pension.
Speaking of pensions, what did the Government do in the autumn statement for the WASPI women? These women have worked and contributed all their lives, doing everything that was asked of them by Government. At the last minute, planning for their future, they were left cut adrift, and when they came to the Government to ask for support, the Government turned away.

Bim Afolami: rose—

Jim McMahon: I absolutely give way to the hon. Gentleman if he can justify that.

Bim Afolami: Would the hon. Gentleman welcome anything at all in the Government’s recently announced industrial strategy, which was, in many respects, targeted towards some of the poorer communities in this country?

Jim McMahon: I am going to give the hon. Gentleman a real answer on this point and not just grandstand, because it is important. I will explain the problem with the industrial strategy as it stands. For a town like Oldham, it is absolutely critical that the UK has an  industrial strategy that holds water—that is forward thinking, ambitious, and has a framework of funding to support growth. I would welcome an industrial strategy that did that, and I think that when it started, that is what it tried to do. The problem is that something fairly dramatic has happened in the meantime, and that is Brexit. What I would have expected the Government to do in the context of the referendum result is not just to dominate Parliament’s time with the transitional and transactional relationships with Europe now and when we leave. I would have expected the Government of the day to produce a real, compelling vision of what type of Britain there is going to be when we leave the European Union. That has not taken place. The domestic legislation coming through this place is non-existent. Money is being taken out of vital public services that would be the foundation for the type of industrial strategy that is being talked about. Money is being taken away from our education and skills system, which would be the starting point for any investment strategy in our economy, particularly in manufacturing and engineering.
So would I welcome anything in the industrial strategy? I would simply welcome the principle of an industrial strategy, but it cannot be done on the cheap. We have seen—let us be honest about this; it transcends different Governments—a complete turning away from UK manufacturing and engineering, at the cost of the communities that people in this place represent. In order to replace that with a forward-thinking industrial strategy, the resources then have to follow, and we have not seen that—we have seen the opposite. Money has been taken away from our Sure Start centres and from our schools. Our colleges are chronically underfunded, with many on estates that are crumbling, struggling to keep up even with basic maintenance. Our apprenticeship system is in tatters since the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. All these things matter if we have  a forward view about what type of country Britain  can be.
The new clauses are important in that context because if we want to create, after Brexit, an inclusive and fair Britain that allows everybody to benefit, we have to make an honest assessment of where Britain is today. We are not in a good place. Our economy is shot. Our job market has been hollowed out, and the good, well-paid jobs in the middle have been taken away. Our housing stock is not fit for purpose and we are investing £9 billion a year into the pockets of private landlords, although we know that 40% of that stock does not even meet the decent homes standard. Those are the really important issues that Members need to think about. If they do not take proper account of what the information tells us, how on earth can we collectively make informed decisions that send us in a different direction?
In this Parliament—people keep saying that it is the mother of all Parliaments, and surely because of that we ought to set the bar higher—Members passing through the voting Lobbies ought to be informed. We ought to know absolutely everything about what we are voting on. Let us be honest, on Brexit, the Government are deliberately denying us key information that is critical to the country’s future—whether it is the sectoral analysis or information about a range of other issues—and would inform our votes in this House. We are being denied quite an important foundation of our democracy.

Stella Creasy: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Whether Members on either side of the House agree with the policies, having good data to enable us to understand their impact helps us to make or dispute an argument. I am struggling to understand why any MP would be against having the facts about the impact of policy, which is all that the new clauses will do. If we had that information, Government Members could confidently tell us what great proposals they are making to improve the country’s prosperity, rather than using anecdotes—or two women.

Jim McMahon: I believe it comes down to priorities. If the Government were determined to do something about this, having the evidence base would be of great benefit to them. They do not want to do anything about it, so the evidence base is a hindrance because the Opposition can use it to attack the Government about the fact that progress just is not being made. That is the real reason why Government are not making progress, and why they are determined not to support the new clauses. It would be far better for the country if the Government were to step up, to be honest and to recognise that the country has some really ingrained challenges that we need to face. Understanding the scale of the challenge from day one is important in making sure that we get into a better position.
My challenge is this: why not? If the Government believe that they are doing the right thing, and that by virtue of their second female Prime Minister they are the party of gender equality and the champions of all that is equal, now is the time to prove it. Members have two choices: they can go through one or other of the voting Lobbies. Perhaps they have a third choice, which is to stay away completely. They can get behind the new clauses and support our request for the data set, which will inform decisions; they can shirk responsibility entirely and stay away from both voting Lobbies; or they can keep their heads down and maintain their own position on the Government Benches, and vote against the new clause because it happens to have come from the Opposition. I would say that that is not putting the interests of the country first.

Kirsty Blackman: I would like to start by correcting an omission that I made yesterday. I should have said that our thoughts are with the Chairman of Ways and Means and his family at this time. It sounds like a really horrendous thing for a family to go through, particularly at Christmas time.
I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), not just for tabling new clause 6, but for the way in which she engaged with us in advance of the debate. I appreciate the time that she took to speak to us about the new clause so that we could discuss how it looked. I think it is absolutely brilliant; it is one of the best new clauses that we have seen in a Finance Bill, and I have tabled a few in my time. I want to speak in favour of the new clause and state our support for it.
I will start by covering why we need the new clause. Although there has been a bit of discussion, we have not talked about what it means in its widest sense. Subsection (2) talks about
“the impact of those provisions on households at different levels of income”,
as well as on protected characteristics, the public sector equality duty and
“equality in different parts of the UK and different regions of England.”
A lot of the debate today has focused on women, which is completely reasonable, but the new clause captures several other things that could have been more fully discussed.
Why do we need an assessment of the impact on various groups, particularly those mentioned in new clause 6? We need it because people in the protected groups or at the lower end of the income spectrum have been disproportionately hit by the actions of this UK Government, as can be seen in a number of ways. It can be seen in the fact that we have young people in jobs on zero-hours contracts. We have those jobs, and the Government say it is wonderful to have so many people in employment, but despite that, we are not seeing an increase in household disposable income because people are not receiving the wages they should receive for such employment. They are in precarious jobs and they are not receiving enough money, and the benefits freeze has been a major added factor. It means that people are earning even less, because the benefits freeze has hit them doubly.
The Government have caused another issue by reducing disability payments. The UN has said that the UK has not done enough to ensure that the UN convention on the rights of persons with disabilities is being met, and no Government in any developed country or nation should seek to be in such a position. We have not had a proper assessment of the impact on disabled people of the changes that this UK Government have made.
The UK Government have also not taken seriously their responsibility to young people in society. We have a living wage that people cannot live on: it is not calculated as something that people can live on; it is a pretendy living wage put forward by the Government. It is not applicable to people younger than 25. Therefore, we have a living wage that people cannot actually live on, but the Government somehow think that the labour of people under 25 is worth less than that of those over 25, even though they may be in exactly the same job and should therefore be earning the same amount.
As has been pretty widely covered, the Budget and successive policies of this UK Government have a disproportionate impact on single parents, the majority of whom are women. We see a disproportionate number of them coming through the doors at our surgeries. Do you know what, Mr Owen? It is absolutely and totally ridiculous that we are seeing a rise in rickets in this country. We are seeing people who cannot afford to eat or to give their children nutritious food because of the decisions of this UK Government.

Drew Hendry: Does my hon. Friend agree it is a scandal that many children will be getting food and presents this Christmas only through the actions of food banks and charities, such as Moray Firth Radio’s Cash for Kids in my constituency? That should not be allowed to happen. With universal credit, this is happening far too often across the nations of the UK.

Kirsty Blackman: I absolutely agree. This year—in 2017—my office has referred 35 people to food banks, and we have gone to the food bank on five occasions on  behalf of constituents who have come through the door and told us that they have not eaten for a number of days. This is supposed to be a country that cares for people who are just about managing, but it is failing them. The people who go to food banks nowadays are working. They are not earning enough money from their jobs to feed their families, so they are having to go to food banks.
We have seen this Government attack people who have protected characteristics, but we have not seen any impact assessments because the Government do not want to admit what they are doing. We have seen attacks on the WASPI women, who, despite having worked all their lives, are being asked to wait even longer for their pensions. We have seen changes with the rape clause and the two-child policy, meaning that women should not have more than two children and, if they conceive as a result of rape, they must write that down on a form and say so explicitly. Why should they have to relive that just to please this Government? We have seen increasing household debt—that has been raised as an issue by the Bank of England—and decreasing household savings. We have seen young women unable to go to school because they cannot afford tampons and towels to provide themselves with a basic level of human dignity.
Another change that has not been talked about hugely in this place is the attack on a group of people with protected characteristics. A massive and increasing number of people come to my surgery because they have no recourse to public funds. It is a particular issue with those fleeing domestic violence, the majority of whom are women. The UK Government have determined that they should have access to public funds for only six weeks if they are from outside the EEA, and not at all if they are from inside the EEA. If they have been living on a joint income with their partner and are fleeing domestic violence, they have no protection from the UK Government because they are giving them no recourse to public funds. That is an attack on a group of people with protected characteristics, and we should no longer tolerate that.
The hon. Members for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon) and for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) mentioned what local authorities have to do in relation to impact assessments. I was a local councillor for eight years before being elected to this place. When we produced budgetary measures, or anything we were going to do in the city that would have an impact on communities, we had to produce an impact assessment specifying how it would affect people with those protected characteristics. If a local authority making decisions for the third largest city in Scotland has to do that, why are the UK Government making decisions that affect every man, woman and child across these islands without producing an impact assessment? Is it because they are ashamed of what they are doing and unwilling to be honest with the people?
In Scotland we are looking at having a progressive taxation system. We are lifting the pay freeze and next year we will be the fairest taxed part of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) says that we will be the highest taxed part. Some 70% of taxpayers in Scotland  will pay no more tax next year than they do this year. Only the highest earners will be paying moderately more. [Interruption.] No one earning less than £33,000 next year will pay any more income tax than they would in England.

Chris Stephens: Is it not a bit rich for some Government Members to try to shout down my hon. Friend, complaining about people on high incomes paying a bit more tax but saying nothing about disabled individuals losing £30 a week in benefits?

Kirsty Blackman: Absolutely. If Government Members cared about what they were doing to disabled people, they would produce the impact assessments that are being requested today, and they would be honest about the changes they have made and how the heaviest impact has been on the most vulnerable in society.
There are folk who have been left behind by this Government. There are folk who have been failed by the safety net. Those are the people we see—I am sure that Government Members see them, too—walking into our surgeries on a regular basis. They say, “I have worked hard all my life, but I still cannot afford to feed myself and my family.” People who have worked every day for years now find that their state pension is being pushed back as a result of this Government’s policies. People find themselves homeless because they have made one or perhaps two bad decisions in their lifetime, which is far fewer than those of us who have bought a safety net and have support structures in place are able to make.
We need a culture change. The conversations we have had in this Chamber are along the same lines as those that have been had in the context of the #metoo hashtag. Women have come forward with #metoo to say that they have been sexually harassed, sexually assaulted or even raped, and people have replied, “We don’t believe you,” “It can’t be that bad,” or “You’re trying to make a big thing of this.” What the SNP and the Opposition are trying to do in this debate is highlight the fact that these disadvantaged groups are being actively disadvantaged by the UK Government’s policies. We are asking the UK Government to produce the impact assessments, because if they deny that that is the case, they should not be scared of producing them.

Mel Stride: This Government are committed to equality. That is not to say that no further steps need to be taken—a situation that pertains perhaps to every Government who have ever been in office—but we have a strong record on equality. More women are in work than at any time in our history, at 70.8%. Last year, over 60% of growth in employment was through women joining the workforce. We have the lowest gender pay gap for full-time employment on record and we have taken action to ensure that companies with 250 employees or more will, from next year, be required to publish details of their gender pay gaps.
For those who are disabled, we are spending more than £50 billion a year on benefits for disabled people and those with health conditions. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced an extra £42 billion for the disabled facilities grant to encourage and assist those with disabilities into the world of work.
For ethnic minorities, when our Prime Minister assumed office last year, one of her first actions was to announce an audit into the differing impacts on ethnic minorities in terms of their use of public services. The report was published in October and will inform our policy going forward.
In the Budget, we increased the national living wage by 4.4% from April, which will disproportionately assist ethnic minority people. We are committed right across Whitehall to ensuring an increase in the uptake of apprenticeships and employment within our police forces and our armed services for ethnic minorities.

David Linden: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but I am afraid he has to stop talking absolute guff when it comes to the national living wage. The Government continue to talk about a national living wage, but that is in fact a con trick because it does not apply to under-25s.

Mel Stride: It applies to a large number of people and there is the national minimum wage as well. My point is that the 4.4% increase in April will be well above inflation, and will disproportionately assist women and those from ethnic minority communities.

Stella Creasy: I thank the Minister for giving way and I am listening to the case he is making. If he is so confident that the Government’s policies promote equality, why is he against having an independent Office for Budget Responsibility equality impact assessment to tell us all the good news?

Mel Stride: I ask the hon. Lady to be a little bit patient, because I am coming to those very points shortly.
On assessments, we are required, under the Equality Act 2010, to take due regard of protected characteristics, but it is not just for that reason that we do so. It is not just for that reason that I and my fellow Ministers took those issues into account at every stage; it is because we believe it is the right thing to do and we wish so to do.
To come to the hon. Lady’s intervention, a number of reports are already out there. We have heard about tax information and impact notes. I do not think the Opposition should dismiss them. They did not mention the distributional analysis the Treasury provides and publishes at the time of the Budget, or the public expenditure statistical analysis, which looks at how expenditure affects different protected characteristics and runs to hundreds of pages in length. What the Opposition are calling for is fundamentally impractical. That is the heart of the matter and the answer to the hon. Lady’s question. Such analyses almost invariably focus on the static situation. They focus on the effect of tax and income changes on individuals without considering the behavioural changes they induce and the implications of changes in the wider economy, such as the level of employment. They are selective and tend to avoid focusing on those who benefit from public services or are affected by taxation. For example, the provision of childcare, social care and health services is normally exempt from such analyses.
The final point, which has been raised already and which the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) indeed recognised, is that where an individual’s income changes, that individual will almost invariably live within  a household with other individuals. She said that the personal allowance increase for taxation disproportionately benefited men, but of course men often live in households with women, and income is distributed across the household. The same is true, of course, where a woman benefits and brings income into a household in which men are also present.

Stella Creasy: It is extraordinary that the Minister does not understand the concept of doing both individual and household analyses, or indeed behavioural alongside static analyses. There are many different ways the Government could be doing equality impact assessments. The problem is that they are not doing any.

Mel Stride: The hon. Lady is right: there are many ways it can be done, and the Government are indeed doing it in many ways. She need not only look to me for the observations I have made; the IFS has recognised my very point about household income. We will, however, continue to look at how we provide information and assess policies, and we will work with the ONS, as the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget.
In conclusion, the Government have a vision for a society that is equal, not in terms of levelling people down, but in terms of giving people the opportunity to go up. In yesterday’s debate on the Bill, the Labour party chose to vote against a measure to encourage young people to get a foot on the housing ladder. That is not acceptable, and that is an example of what we will do to promote equality of wealth and opportunity at every turn. I urge the Committee to reject new clauses 6 and 7.

Dawn Butler: The Minister referred to distributional analyses. The distributional analysis carried out by the IFS, the non-gendered and gendered analyses of the Women’s Budget Group, and others, such as those carried out using the Euromod tax-benefit model for EU countries, all share the same characteristic: they are static. The exact same method is adopted by the Treasury itself when it assesses the distributional impact of Budget measures in Budget and IFS documents. If the Treasury does not like other people using the model, perhaps it should not use it itself. The Government cannot criticise others for using the same method as them to analyse their own Budget.
The Minister said several times that the Government believed in equality, but their actions fail to carry that through. They say one thing and do another, and they are exacerbating inequality in our society. [Interruption.] The Chancellor says from a sedentary position, “Unlike the Labour party”. The Labour party is more competent than this Government have ever been in ensuring that this country is more equal. All the equalities legislation has come from a Labour Government—[Interruption.] Productivity, growth, all the equalities legislation has come under a Labour Government, not a Conservative Government. In fact, every time the Conservatives enter government, everything starts to go down. Food banks were not part of the Department for Work and Pensions scheme when Labour was in government. Period poverty was not part of everyday life for young women when Labour was in government.
I say to the Minister, “If you in any way believe in equality, you should not lead your merry men into the No Lobby. You should lead them into the Aye Lobby, and vote with us.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 273, Noes 309.

Question accordingly negatived.
New Clause 8

Analysis of Effectiveness of Provisions of this Act on Tax Avoidance and Evasion

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must review the effectiveness of the provisions of this Act in accordance with this section and lay a report of that review before the House of Commons within six months of the passing of this Act.
(2) A review under this section must consider—
(a) the effects of the provisions in reducing levels of artificial tax avoidance,
(b) the effects of the provisions in combating tax evasion, and
(c) estimates of the role of the provisions of this Act in reducing the tax gap in each tax year from 2018 to 2022.”.—(Anneliese Dodds.)
This new clause requires the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill in tackling artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion, and in reducing the tax gap.
Brought up, and read the First time.

Anneliese Dodds: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
It will not have escaped Members’ attention that Christmas is coming. In fact, some of us may even have thought that Christmas was already here given that we enjoyed the previous debate so much. However, I must say that discussing this Finance Bill again feels like an alternative celebration on this side of the Chamber: Groundhog Day. For the third time since entering this House, I rise to speak about yet another woefully thin and inconsequential Finance Bill that fails to take the action that our economy so clearly requires.
The consequences of a Government focused on the management of internal party disputes, not sustainable economic growth, have become clear for all to see over the past few weeks: growth levels the third lowest in the OECD during the first half of this year; productivity growth lower than in the eurozone and well below the average of the EU as a whole; falling living standards, with wages under their longest squeeze since Napoleonic times; and a Government who have had to revise their targets for eliminating the current deficit no fewer than five times, and who are now resolved to eliminate the deficit only by 2030—15 years after the end date promised during the 2010 general election campaign. It’s behind you, to use a pantomime phrase—my hon. Friend the Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler) was keen on them in the previous debate. In that context, it is depressing  to see the Government yet again pass up the opportunity to deal with aggressive tax avoidance and evasion in a steadfast manner.
Labour’s new clause 8 would require the Chancellor of the Exchequer to carry out and publish a review of the effectiveness of the provisions of the Bill in tackling artificial tax avoidance and tax evasion, and in reducing the tax gap, within six months of it entering into effect.

Kelvin Hopkins: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the first part of her speech. Some three or four years ago, the distinguished tax expert Richard Murphy estimated the total tax gap at £119 billion a year. To my knowledge, that figure has never been seriously challenged or debunked, and it may now even be higher. Does my hon. Friend accept that if the Government were serious about dealing with this matter, they could pay off the deficit and have plenty more to spend on public services?

Anneliese Dodds: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The calculations made by economists and accountants, such as Mr Murphy, reflect the cost to our Exchequer of international profit shifting, which the Government’s estimate of the tax gap does not.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that low wages mask inefficiency? One of the big problems with the economy is that we have 4 million or 5 million people in that category, which encourages less efficiency, not improvements.

Anneliese Dodds: I agree with my hon. Friend. In fact, a problem that underlines our productivity gap is the worryingly low levels of private investment in our economy, which is reducing efficiency and places Britain outside the sphere of many comparable nations on investment. Sadly, the Government did not grasp that problem in the Budget.
The Opposition are calling for a review in the absence of the ability to call for more wide-ranging changes to the Bill given the Government’s unwillingness to table a general amendment to the law as part of this Finance Bill. That is unfortunate given the lack of new measures in the Bill, the limitations of the measures that are included, and the fact that much of the Bill represents a cleaning-up of previously announced but ill-thought-through measures. I will deal with each of those matters in turn.
It is, to say the least, regrettable that Members from across this House are unable to introduce new measures to the Bill. Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme sets out several areas where the Government should be taking action to tighten up our leaky ship, but we see no such ambition from the current Administration. Again, there is an unwillingness to engage with those who do have the energy and expertise to promote new measures.
When it has been possible for Members to amend Finance Bills, they have often done so to good effect. So it was that my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) amended what became the Finance Act 2016, giving the Government the power to introduce public country-by-country reporting and requiring multinational firms to indicate their profits, staff and tax paid in the different jurisdictions in which they operate.  The measure is already in practice in the banking and extractive industries, where it has effectively promoted tax transparency and has offered a lot of evidence and information that has been very helpful to investors in those fields, but Members on both sides of the House who are keen to see the Government use the powers already available under the 2016 Act to make country-by-country reporting public, and who believe the Government should be playing a leadership role in this area, are sadly emasculated by the Government’s unwillingness to allow colleagues to table proper amendments to this Bill.
In this case, the Government are flying in the face of public opinion, with more than three quarters of the public reportedly stating that multinational firms with a significant presence in the UK should report publicly, per country, on the size of their profits and on the tax they pay.
The same frustrations about the inability to amend the Bill apply to the Government’s limited willingness to promote transparency on beneficial ownership. By excluding Companies House from the coverage of anti-money laundering regulations, there is little to no oversight of the more than 600,000 companies formed every year in the UK, many of which then seem to sink without trace. There is little point in creating a register of beneficial ownership if no due diligence is exercised to ensure that the information is accurate.
Additionally, I can reveal today that the Government are yet again behind the curve of other European nations in continuing to fail to subject trusts to coverage in registers of beneficial ownership. Of course, as we know, David Cameron himself intervened personally to prevent the European Council from agreeing to the measure back in April 2016, but the Council’s negotiators recently appeared to have overcome those objections. I can reveal that, as of Friday afternoon, there is now agreement at European level to include business-like trusts on registers of beneficial ownership, so I hope the Minister will inform us today of whether and when he will act to include business-like trusts on the British register of beneficial ownership, or whether our Government will continue to act as a drag on international co-operation in this area.
If colleagues had the power to amend this Bill, I imagine they would also want to promote measures to stem the haemorrhage of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs staff, as ably argued in this House by my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for Stockton South (Dr Williams) and for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Hugh Gaffney), and by Members for many other constituencies affected by the cuts to HMRC. They are concerned that their constituencies face the prospect of losing thousands of skilled jobs to HMRC restructuring, which is reducing HMRC’s resources at the very time the demands being placed on it are heavier than ever before, not least due to the additional burden of post-Brexit arrangements for customs and for taxing highly mobile profits.
I find it astonishing that we still have no indication from the Government of how they will deal with the competition challenge that small and medium-sized companies will face once the UK leaves the EU and its competition-regulating powers. Just this week, the European Commission announced that it is to investigate the tax  affairs of Ikea under state aid regulations, which are intended to prevent multinational companies from making use of tax arrangements that are not available to small and medium-sized companies, yet it is unclear whether our Government intend merely to increase the number of their sweetheart tax rulings on multinationals after Brexit, or whether they intend to adopt a more muscular, effective approach to tackling profit shifting and, if the latter, how they will co-ordinate that with other countries.
The initial signs are worrying. Only last week, Conservative Members of the European Parliament abstained on a crucial vote on the European Parliament’s investigative report on the Panama papers. Appallingly, we have still not heard whether our Government will back those whistleblowers and investigative journalists who allowed the world to see what was hidden in the Paradise papers.
Will the Minister inform us today of whose side this Government are on—those who promoted the public interest in revealing how some are profiting from mismatches and secrecy in the international tax system, or those who profit from such obfuscatory arrangements?

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does my hon. Friend agree it is disgraceful that some of those named in the Paradise papers are now threatening court action against those whistleblowers and are trying to scare people into not releasing such information in future?

Anneliese Dodds: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend on that. There is a particular onus on the Government to be steadfast and clear in their rejection of those legal challenges and the problems they potentially pose to our democracy. Of course it is just the BBC and The Guardian that have been threatened with legal action, not any of the other 90 or so media outlets based in other countries. It is UK-based firms and media organisations that have been threatened with that action, so I hope the Minister will make clear to us today whether or not he agrees with Appleby’s threat of legal action against those who revealed the details of the Paradise papers in the public interest.
Many of the measures in the Bill intended to prevent aggressive tax avoidance and evasion do not go far enough. I have already referred in this House to clause 21, which seems to adopt a confusing new approach to measuring profit shifting, rather than aiming to reduce it per se. Yet again, there sadly appears to be deafening silence here concerning the need for tax simplification, with only minor measures that do not meet the required standard of a thoroughgoing, holistic assessment of the overall impacts of tax reliefs, which we desperately need in this country if we are to have proper Government accounting.
Finally, we see in the Bill a number of additional measures that seem intended mainly just to clean up previous mistakes by this Government, many of them following criticism from Labour Members. In clause 35 and schedule 10, for example, we find anti-avoidance provisions in relation to payments and benefits made from offshore trusts, no doubt reflecting the concerns we raised about the potential misuse of offshore trusts by non-doms. Let us be clear, before this issue crops up yet again in this debate: this Government have not abolished long-term, non-dom status. The new measures  do not apply to those whose parents are non-doms, as is often the case, and a 15-year window is provided for individuals to get their affairs in order. In another example, clause 28 closes the loophole introduced by the coalition Government in 2011 that allowed foreign companies to hold on to an asset-stripped subsidiary for six years until they were then able to claim loss relief in excess of any genuine economic loss to the group. Again, the measure tidies up a problem that was created previously by those involved with this Administration.
To conclude, this Finance Bill was a chance for strong action against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion, but, sadly, we have here a paltry Bill, which some Conservative Members have praised in some of these debates for being thin. It is not thin because it is concise; it is thing because, sadly, just like this Government, it is lacking in ideas and ambition. We need a change now, more than ever.

Alex Chalk: I welcome this Finance Bill, because it does three things so far as taxation is concerned: first, it prioritises increasing the total pot for public services while recognising the common-sense proposition that we must live within our means; secondly, it entrenches and enhances the fundamentally progressive nature of the tax system; and, thirdly, it redoubles our country’s efforts to tackle tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance. The theme that unites those three strands is a relentless focus on discharging our obligation to the next generation: on ensuring that we are laying the foundations for a better, fairer country; one whose best days are yet to come. In doing so, we are observing our solemn duty to those who will come after us. We must not fail them, not just because history will condemn us if we do not, but because we ought to be able in this House to recognise that moral obligation for ourselves.
On tax avoidance and evasion, there has rightly been a sense that multinational corporations have been seeking to game the taxation system, using their market power to their financial advantage. That sticks in my craw, the craw of my constituents and the craw of Members across this House, because when we talk about the rule of law, that is about ensuring that we are all equal before not only the criminal law, but taxation law. Few things are more corrosive to public confidence in the enterprise economy than the sense that large corporations are wriggling out of their responsibilities to society—these responsibilities provide free healthcare and education, as well as a safe and secure environment to operate in. So I welcome the fact that the tax gap in our country has been driven down significantly, from 8% to 6%. That translates into an additional £12.5 billion per annum, which is more than the entire Ministry of Justice budget and far more than the entire annual spend on the prison system. We have the lowest tax gap in the world.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that that 6% does not take into account profit shifting? It comes from HMRC effectively marking its own homework and patting itself on the back.

Alex Chalk: Absolutely not. It is an internationally recognised statistic that shows that this country bears comparison with any other developed nation in the  world, and it marks a significant improvement on the situation that prevailed under the previous Labour Government. The fact is that more than £160 billion extra has been received since 2010. To put it into context, that is more than the entire annual NHS budget.
We have addressed egregious loopholes that allowed some foreign nationals not to pay capital gains tax when they sold houses in the UK. That allowed people to live in the UK permanently but claim non-dom status; and it allowed people to avoid paying tax by calling their salary from their own company a loan. Those were abuses and we have closed them down. It is important to note that the UK has spearheaded a groundbreaking initiative to share information on beneficial ownership with more than 50 jurisdictions, including every British overseas territory and Crown dependency with a financial centre.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Alex Chalk: No, because I am going to conclude.
All that I have described shows the UK’s commitment to transparency and that we are at the cutting edge of financial propriety.
It is absolutely right that the Government take further action to raise £4.8 billion by 2022-23. First, we are tackling online VAT evasion by making online marketplaces jointly liable for their sellers’ unpaid VAT; secondly, we are investing an additional £150 million to fund HMRC staff and the latest technology; and thirdly, we are tackling further disguised remuneration schemes, because if people are gaming the system, we should call it out.
In short, the Bill bears down on aggressive tax avoidance and evasion. It sends out the clear message that we in this country believe in innovation, modernisation, investment and employment. We will back businesses that unlock human potential and generate jobs and wages, but we expect businesses to play by the rules, honour their dues to society and respect the next generation. The Bill meets those priorities and lays the foundations for a country that is fit for the future.

Oliver Heald: Does my hon. Friend agree that above all else, this is about persistent, detailed work over time to close the loopholes and deal with the tax gap? It is not about making a speech and pretending we can spend all the money that is being lost; it is a question of grinding away over time and getting the tax gap down from 8% to 6% and so on.

Alex Chalk: As always, my right hon. and learned Friend hits the nail on the head. There is no substitute for hard, detailed work. Ultimately, it is a game of cat and mouse, because those who seek to avoid tax will be ever more inventive. It requires detailed work to ensure that the loopholes are closed, and the Government are absolutely committed to that task. The Bill shows that and I am happy to support it.

Kelvin Hopkins: I shall speak briefly. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds) on her excellent Front-Bench speech.
Early in his speech, the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) talked about morality. There is morality in paying tax: we cannot have a civilised society without  people paying tax to pay for public services and income being redistributed from those who have more than they need to those who have less than they need.
The crisis in 2008 and the problem of tax avoidance and evasion, overseas tax havens and so on, all arose as a result of Geoffrey Howe’s disastrous decision in 1979 to abolish exchange controls immediately. That led to the crisis and the massive flows of money across national boundaries around the world, causing all sorts of problems. Even the then Governor of the Bank of England, Mervyn King, suggested to the Treasury Committee at the time of the 2008 crisis that if things got really bad, we might have had to reintroduce exchange controls. I am not suggesting that I will be able to persuade the Government to do that at this stage, but in time we are going to have to look at how we manage the vast flows of money across national boundaries around the world. It is the bankers who are the crooks—not the good bankers who look after our ordinary accounts, but those who gamble with money and often worthless bits of paper on the foreign exchanges.
The hon. Member for Cheltenham talked about morality. Millions of ordinary people in this country do have a very moral sense. Many of them, including me—I am very well paid compared with ordinary people—say that they would pay a bit more tax if they could guarantee that the money went to the health service and to people who are less well off than themselves. At the same time, the mega rich, the corporates and the bankers are resisting any kind of constraint on their activities. I see where the morality lies: it lies with decent ordinary people, not with bankers. We must constrain those bankers somehow and have serious measures that will actually have the effect of stopping the tax avoidance and tax evasion that has bedevilled our society for so long.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford East. This Bill is weak; it needs to be much stronger. I look to a Labour Government in the very near future introducing serious measures to deal with tax avoidance and tax evasion.

Kirsty Blackman: The discussion that we had earlier on today and that we are having now in relation to tax avoidance really goes to the heart of the question: what kind of country do the Government want to be in charge of. It was clear from the earlier debate that the Government do not want to be in charge of a country that is open and upfront about tax changes and the impacts that they will have. They also have issues with tax avoidance and evasion and with the choices that they make. Their choices are very much not the ones that Scottish National party Members would make, nor indeed, I think, ones that the Opposition would make.
On the issue of the tax gap in particular, the UK Government took the decision that it was more important to have immigration officers who were concerned with ensuring that the “wrong sort of people” did not get into the country than it was to have customs officers. We have ended up in a situation where there are very few customs inspections, which is a major contributor to our tax gap. We are talking about tax avoidance and tax evasion and about going forward into a situation in which we will need to make many more customs checks, when the UK Government have got rid of most of the  people who know what they are talking about in relation to customs. We have a major problem that needs to be solved if we are to fix those issues.
A Transparency International report mentioned 766 UK companies that had avoided tax. A quarter of those companies are still active in the United Kingdom. The UK Government do not seem to have taken any action to ensure that they cannot dodge tax in the way that they have. Among the actions that we have been talking about is protection for whistleblowers. We continue to call for whistleblowers to be better protected. It is really important for people to feel that they can come forward safely and that they can uncover major problems that exist at the heart of some organisations that operate within this country, and at the heart of some schemes that operate within these islands. If the UK Government produced stronger guidance and stronger protection for whistleblowers, it would allow and encourage more people to come forward.
On the issues around the general anti-avoidance rule and the complexity of the tax code, we have been consistent in our criticism of how complex the tax code is. Someone posted a picture recently of the new version of the UK tax code that had just appeared: the thing was almost as tall as me. An absolutely huge number of bits of paper are required to make up the tax code. Is it any wonder that there are unintended loopholes that people can exploit? If the tax code was much simpler, if there were fewer tax reliefs and if the UK Government chose instead to give money to people rather than a tax relief, it would make things slightly better.

Bill Grant: The hon. Lady suggested that there is a confusion in the tax codes. It is only in recent days that the Scottish SNP Government have introduced a raft of new bands for tax and indeed increased tax. I find that anomaly quite strange.

Kirsty Blackman: It is not actually a raft of new tax bands. As far as I know, it is one more band in the tax system with slightly different numbers for the pennies. But that is only in relation to income tax. Some 70% of people will pay less tax and 55% will pay less tax than they would in England. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, therefore, that the English system is taxing people unfairly compared to the Scottish system?

Mel Stride: I thank the hon. Lady for indulging me. She says that 70% of Scottish taxpayers will pay less tax, but will she accept the fact that that is largely due to the changes made by the UK Government in raising the personal allowance?

Kirsty Blackman: The Scottish Government’s new starter rate of 19%, rather than 20%, for the first £2,000 that people earn is really positive. It is an incredibly progressive taxation measure, and it is something that the UK Government cannot claim; it is something that the Scottish Government are doing.

Martin Docherty: If Conservative Members wish to debate the progressive taxation system introduced by the Scottish Government, maybe they should stand for the Scottish Parliament.

Kirsty Blackman: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments. I do, however, want to say one more thing on the Scottish tax system, so I hope he will indulge me.
The Scottish tax system is progressive. It is making a difference by ensuring that people who earn under £24,000 pay less tax. That is a positive measure and a good way forward. If members of the UK Government have concerns about the Scottish Parliament’s choices on tax, perhaps it would be better for them to support an increase in the block grant. They could also tell us whether they would cut the money that is going to be made up from the Scottish Government’s tax changes from education, local authorities or the health service.
I will bring the Committee back to tax avoidance. I am sorry, Sir Roger, for testing your patience slightly. The Scottish National party has been consistent in its criticism of Scottish limited partnerships. My former colleague, Roger Mullin, was like a dog with a bone; he would not let go of this matter. That was to his credit because the UK Government decided to make changes to the SLP regime as they recognised that it is massively used for tax avoidance and dodging. There was a review of SLPs, but we are yet to see changes as a result. Will the Minister let us know at least the timeline for making those changes in order to ensure that SLPs are no longer used as a tax-dodging mechanism? This is an important change that really needs to be made, preferably sooner rather than later.
Talking about the UK Government not working as they should regarding tax avoidance and evasion, the Panama papers and the Paradise papers have both been published in my time as an MP. It is very clear that the tax system—not just the global tax system, but even the system in the UK—is failing. It is allowing people and organisations to dodge tax. It is all well and good to talk about overseas trusts. In fact, this frustrates me a huge amount because the Government try to give the impression that overseas trusts are used by organisations such as rural churches in order to fix their roofs. It is not the case that they are used by organisations like that; they are used by people who are trying to dodge tax. We need the hardest possible line on that.
We cannot see the United Kingdom turn into a low-tax, deregulated tax haven. If the UK Government are deciding what kind of country they want the United Kingdom to be, they should not choose one that involves deregulation. With Brexit, they have the opportunity to put their stamp on the future, but I am incredibly concerned about the way that it will go. In bringing back control, some of the reins that have perhaps been put on the UK Government will be taken off and they will be free, for example, to take away the working time directive, and to make changes to our world-class social security system, fair society and good business practices. That is incredibly concerning.
We have called before, and we will not stop calling, for powers to deal with tax avoidance and evasion to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament. We believe that we would do a better job because we could not really do a worse one. We would put forward a fair and moral tax system and a general anti-avoidance rule in order to discourage people from dodging tax, and we would ensure that our tax gap was way smaller than the UK Government’s.

Mel Stride: This Government are committed to bearing down on tax avoidance, evasion and non-compliance like no other Government in history. While I have  enormous respect for the hon. Member for Oxford East (Anneliese Dodds), the shadow Minister, and I respect the spirited nature of her attack on our record, I am afraid she is misguided.
We have a strong record. We have brought in and protected £160 billion of potentially avoided tax since 2010 as a result of over 100 measures that we have brought in. We have, as we have heard in the debate, one of the lowest tax gaps in the entire world, at just 6%. Contrary to some of the suggestions from those on the Labour Benches, that is a robust and firm figure; it is described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the world. It is, indeed, produced by HMRC, but it is produced to the strict guidelines set out by the Office for National Statistics.

Kelvin Hopkins: The Minister mentioned HMRC. One of the things the Government have done over many years now is to squeeze HMRC, which has fewer offices and not enough staff. Does he not accept that every single additional tax officer collects many times their own salary? If the Government were serious about tax collection, they would expand HMRC substantially.

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman may know that, in the last Budget, £155 million was set aside to be invested in HMRC, for exactly the activity that he has described. That is expected to bring in £4.8 billion through a further reduction in tax avoidance over the forecast period.
The other point I would make to the hon. Gentleman is that HMRC’s effectiveness is not all about having lots of regional offices staffed with tax inspectors. Tax is collected today using sophisticated intelligence-led and data-led techniques. We need to invest in that if we are to continue to achieve the outstanding results we are achieving at the moment.
We have borne down with penalties for developers and enablers of tax avoidance schemes. On the international side, our country has been in the vanguard of the base erosion and profit shifting project. We now have over 100 countries involved in common reporting standards, so HMRC can access information in real time to bear down on non-compliance in those jurisdictions. We have introduced new measures in this Budget in relation to clamping down on the abuse of overseas trusts. Since 2010, we have brought in £2.8 billion in additional revenues as a consequence of clamping down on the activities of UK residents hiding their wealth inappropriately in overseas trusts.
We have, of course, been the Government that abolished permanent non-dom status. I have to disagree, I am afraid, with the hon. Member for Oxford East, who suggested that if someone’s parents were non-domiciled, that in some way suggests that that person would not be subject to the rules we have brought in. That is simply not the case. If someone has been resident for 15 of the previous 20 years, they will be deemed domiciled, irrespective of who their parents happen to be.
New clause 8 suggests we should have yet another assessment. We have heard consistently in all the debates we have had on the Floor of the House on this Bill about having more and more assessments, but I would say to Opposition Members that we already have a robust figure for the tax gap. As I have said, it has been described by the IMF as one of the most robust in the  world, and we certainly do not need even more information out there to prove just how successful this Government have been in bearing down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance.
However, as a consequence of this Bill, we will go even further than we have to date. Clause 38 relates to online VAT fraud, and we will make online platforms jointly and severally liable where VAT avoidance occurs, extending that approach from overseas sellers to domestic sellers, and ensuring that they are responsible for supplying accurate and appropriate VAT information on their sites. That will raise £1 billion by 2023.
Clauses 11 and 12 will complete our work on disguised remuneration, and bearing down on that will have brought in £3.6 billion by 2019, when we will be closing down on those schemes.
Clause 42 ensures that where there is illegal landfill activity, we apply the tax that would have been in place had those activities been legal, bringing in a further £145 million. There are also the changes brought in by clauses 20 and 21 to address avoidance involving intellectual property within companies.
This Government have a record that is second to none when it comes to clamping down on avoidance, evasion and non-compliance. Labour had 13 years in which to address such measures, and did very little. In fact, the tax gap under the previous Labour Government was such that if we had it today, we would be over £12 billion short every single year—enough to fund every policeman and woman in England and Wales. We will continue to bear down, as appropriate and with vigour, on tax evasion and avoidance to ensure a fair and civilised society where those who are due to pay their fair share do so, to support our public services. I urge the Committee to reject new clause 8.

Anneliese Dodds: It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
First, let me respond to the Minister’s comments. I said before that it feels a little like groundhog day, although that is in February rather than at Christmas time. While I have a huge amount of respect for the Minister, and I am very grateful for his gracious comments, I suggest that in a moment he may be in the position of the Mayor of Wisconsin, who, he may remember, was nipped by the groundhog on groundhog day. I fear that the Minister is going to be nipped slightly after saying that Labour in government did very little on tax avoidance and tax evasion. He will be very much aware, because I have said this many times to him and to other Government Members, of the huge role that was played by Dawn Primarolo when she chaired the Code of Conduct Group. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) makes a comment about the tax gap. We have already discussed some of the conflicts around the calculation of the tax gap, such as the fact that, sadly, it does not include international profit shifting. If it did, we would have a much larger tax gap.
I have mentioned the role of Dawn Primarolo, for Labour, chairing the Code of Conduct Group, which identified, published and eliminated 68 harmful tax measures. I can now reveal that there is much, much more that Labour Governments did. Perhaps, regrettably, the Minister has not been given sight of the letter to the  Chancellor by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), the shadow Leader of the House. When she asked the House of Commons Library exactly what Labour Governments had achieved in the field of tax avoidance and evasion, it provided very full information, which she has sent on to the Chancellor. The Library made it very clear that under Labour Administrations there were 14 Budget reports, each of which included measures on preventing tax dodging. As well as those instances of action, there was the introduction of the disclosure regime and the Primarolo statement, which, in practice, revolutionised HMRC’s ability to tackle tax dodging. Labour Members will not take lessons from Government Members when we have a strong record in this area.
The Minister did not make clear what the Government’s approach will be to the inclusion of business-like trusts in registers of beneficial ownership, as is now EU policy. Will that be the UK’s policy? That has been resisted by Conservatives so far; I hope that they will now change their tune. He also did not enlighten us on his opinion of the legal action that is being taken against a British newspaper and the British Broadcasting Corporation because of their revealing the reality of international tax planning by some actors who are giving others in that area a terrible name. I regret that he did not respond to my direct questions on those matters.
I would like to respond briefly to comments made by other Members. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), when asked about whether HMRC’s figure on the tax gap included international profit shifting, refused to respond, sadly. I want to respond to the point about whether the Finance Bill protects governmental revenue. I do not want to go over the debates that we had yesterday and the many comments made by Labour Members, but I regret that in their new approach to the bank levy—reducing its rate and scope, and imposing an inadequate surcharge—the Government have decided voluntarily to reduce by a third the funds that come from the banking sector. Conservative Members can broadcast as much as they like about the additional tax that has arisen because of the banks’ profitability, but that is a natural consequence of the British economy’s return to profitability after the financial crisis. In practice, the Finance Bill does not act up to those goals in any sense.
My hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) has campaigned on tax transparency for many years, and he made several prescient points. The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) referred to the personnel challenges being experienced by HMRC. They are of enormous concern, as she said, in the context of Brexit, as a result of which we may have more customs challenges. There has been a substantial reduction in HMRC’s headcount of, I believe, around a fifth since 2010. I take on board the points that the Minister made about having the right capabilities and the right technical facility. However, when I look back at the Home Affairs Committee’s discussion of whether HMRC would be ready with the new CHIEF system and have the capability to deliver it, I am filled, I am sad to say, with concern rather than confidence.
At this point, I will finish my remarks by commending to the Committee our new clause, which asks for a review of the provisions and whether they genuinely tackle tax dodging.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House divided:
Ayes 271, Noes 311.

Question accordingly negatived.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill (Clauses 8, 33, 40 and 41, and schedules 9 and 11) reported, without amendment, and ordered to lie on the Table.

PREVENTION AND SUPPRESSION OF TERRORISM

Ben Wallace: I beg to move,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 18 December, be approved.
The threat level in the United Kingdom, which is set by the joint terrorism analysis centre, remains at severe. This means that a terrorist attack on our country is highly likely and could occur without warning. We can never entirely eliminate the threat from terrorism, but we are determined to do all we can to minimise the threat to the United Kingdom and our interests abroad, as well as to disrupt those who would engage in it. Recognising that terrorism is a global threat that is best tackled in partnership, it is also important that we demonstrate our support for other members of the international community in their efforts to tackle terrorism wherever it occurs.
Proscription is an important part of the Government’s strategy to disrupt the activities of terrorist groups and those who provide support to them. The order before the House today would add four groups to the list of proscribed organisations by amending schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000: al-Ashtar Brigades, including its aliases Saraya al-Ashtar, Wa’ad Allah Brigades, Islamic Allah Brigades, Imam al-Mahdi Brigades and al-Haydariyah Brigades; al-Mukhtar Brigades, including Saraya al-Mukhtar; Hasam, including Harakat Sawa’d Misr and Harakat Hasm; and Liwa al-Thawra. This is the 22nd proscription order under the 2000 Act.
The proscriptions send a strong message that terrorist activity is not tolerated wherever it happens. Under section 3 of the Act, the Home Secretary has the power to proscribe an organisation if she believes it is concerned in terrorism. If the statutory test is met, the Home Secretary may then exercise her discretion to proscribe the organisation. The Home Secretary takes into account a number of factors in considering whether to exercise that discretion. These include: the nature and scale of an organisation’s activities; and the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism.
The effect of proscription is that a listed organisation is outlawed and unable to operate in the United Kingdom. It is a criminal offence for a person to belong to, invite or provide support for, or arrange a meeting in support of, a proscribed organisation. It is also an offence to wear clothing or carry articles in public, such as flags that arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or a supporter of a proscribed organisation.
Proscription sends a strong message to deter fundraising and recruitment for proscribed organisations. The assets of a proscribed organisation can become subject to seizure as terrorist assets. Proscription can also support other disruptions of terrorist activity, including for example the use of immigration powers such as exclusion from the UK where the individual is linked to a proscribed organisation and their presence in the United Kingdom would not be in the public interest. Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary only exercises her powers to proscribe after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence of an organisation. This includes information from both open sources and sensitive intelligence, as well as advice that reflects consultation across Government,  including with the intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The cross-Government proscription review group supports the Home Secretary in this decision-making process. The Home Secretary’s decision to proscribe is taken only after great care and consideration of each case, but given the impact the power can have, it is appropriate that proscription must be approved by both Houses. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary believes that al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra are currently concerned in terrorism.
Although I am unable to comment on specific intelligence, I can provide a summary of each group’s activities in turn. The first group the order proscribes is al-Ashtar Brigades and its aliases. It is a Bahrain-based Shi’a militant organisation established in 2013. Its aim is to overthrow the Bahraini al-Khalifa ruling family through violent militant operations. It lists the ruling al-Khalifa family, Bahraini security forces and Saudi Arabia as targets for attacks. The group has claimed responsibility for numerous attacks in Bahrain, including a jail break of 10 convicted terrorists that led to the death of a police officer in January 2017; an improvised explosive device attack in a bus station in Sitrah, which was claimed by the group under the name Wa’ad Allah Brigades in February; and an attack on a police vehicle near the village of al-Qadeem in July. More generally, the group has incited violent activity against the Bahraini Government, as well as the British, American and Saudi Arabian Governments on social media.
The second group the order proscribes is al-Mukhtar Brigades, also known as Saraya al-Mukhtar, a Bahrain-based Shi’a militant organisation established in 2013. It lists the al-Khalifa ruling family, Bahraini security forces and Saudi Arabia as targets for attacks. The group’s activities include the continued promotion and glorification of terrorism via social media throughout 2017.
The third group to be proscribed is Hasam and its aliases. Hasam is an extremist group targeting Egyptian security forces and the overthrow of the Egyptian Government. It announced its creation on 16 July 2016, following an attack conducted in Fayoum Governorate in Egypt. In September 2016, the group claimed responsibility for the attempted assassination of Assistant Prosecutor General Zakaria Abdel-Aziz and the attempted assassination of former Grand Mufti of Egypt Ali Gomaa a month earlier. The group has claimed responsibility for over 15 attacks between March and September this year in Cairo. It carried out small arms fire attacks in March, May and July and bomb attacks in March, June and September, the latter exploding close to the Myanmar embassy in Cairo.
The final group to be proscribed is Liwa al-Thawra, another extremist opposition group using violent tactics against Egyptian security forces and aiming at the end of the Egyptian Government. It announced its creation on 21 August 2016, following an attack in Monofeya. The group has claimed responsibility for attacks, including bombings and assassinations, including the attack in Monofeya in Egypt, the assassination of Egyptian Brigadier General Adel Regali in October 2016, and in April 2017 the bombing of the Egyptian police training centre in Tanta, Egypt.
In addition to adding these groups, we propose to remove Hezb-e Islami Gulbuddin from the list of proscribed organisations. The HIG—for short—is an offshoot of  the political Hezb-e Islami party and was formed in 1977 in response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. You must forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my mix of Arabic and Lancashire—it does not make for the best dialect of Arabic or Pashtun, but we will get there. The HIG—I will go easy on people’s ears—is anti-western and seeks the creation of a fundamentalist Islamic state in Afghanistan. Since 2001, its main objective has been the removal of western forces and influence in Afghanistan as well as restoring Islamic law.
The HIG has been proscribed in the UK since October 2005. However, on 22 September 2016, the group agreed to a peace deal with Afghanistan’s Government. After careful consideration, the Home Secretary has concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to support a reasonable belief that the HIG continues to be concerned in terrorism as defined by section 3(5) of the Terrorism Act 2000. Under that section, the Home Secretary has the power to remove an organisation from the list of proscribed organisations if she believes that it no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. Accordingly the Home Secretary has brought forward this order. If the order is approved, HIG will be removed from the list of proscribed organisations, which means that being a member of HIG, or inviting or providing support for it, will cease to be a criminal offence on the day that the order comes into force.

Mike Gapes: I broadly support the Minister’s proposals, but how can we be sure that adding organisations to the list in any way makes our authorities effective in combating them, given that in the last few months terrorist organisations have been parading openly with their flags—in Arabic—in the centre of London, and prosecutions have not occurred?

Ben Wallace: Proscription opens up a whole new level of offences for which people can be prosecuted. Proscribing an organisation allows asset-freezing and prosecution, but other offences can be linked to such activity. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that it is often hard to prove membership—very few of these organisations have membership cards and joining ceremonies—but the order gives our law enforcement agencies more powers with which to prosecute a campaign against them.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned flags, no doubt referring to Hezbollah and Hamas. Those organisations are not proscribed in their entirety. Their military wings are proscribed, but as Hezbollah forms part of the Government in Lebanon and Hamas plays an active role in its part of the region as a member of a Government, the proscription applies only to the military wing. In some cases the flags are identical, but that does not mean that if people participate in Hezbollah-supporting actions here that constitute terrorism or anything linked to it, our police and law enforcement agencies will not act. We have acted in respect of Hezbollah and Hamas in the past, either to disrupt activity or to bring prosecutions.
We do not condone any terrorist activity, and we always take a cautious approach to de-proscription. De-proscription of a particular group should not be interpreted as the UK Government’s condoning any previous activities of that group. We have always been clear about the fact that HIG was a terrorist organisation. Groups that do not meet the threshold for proscription must remain within the law, and are not free to spread  hatred, fund terrorist activity or incite violence as they please. The police have comprehensive powers to take action against individuals who engage in such activity, under the criminal law. We are determined to detect and disrupt all terrorist threat, whether home-grown or international. Proscription is just one weapon in the considerable armoury that is at the disposal of the Government, the police and the security services to disrupt terrorist activity.
The Government continue to exercise the proscription power in a proportionate manner, in accordance with the law. We recognise that proscription potentially interferes with individuals’ rights, particularly those protected by article 10—freedom of expression—and article 11 —freedom of association—of the European convention on human rights, and should be exercised only when absolutely necessary. The order demonstrates that when proscription is no longer necessary, we are prepared to act to de-proscribe groups that are no longer “concerned in terrorism”.
I believe that it is right to add these four groups—al-Ashtar Brigades, al-Mukhtar Brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra Brigade—and their aliases to the list of the proscribed organisations in schedule 2 of the Act, and, equally, that it is proportionate to remove HIG from the list. Subject to the agreement of both Houses, the order will come into force on Friday 22 December.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: I am grateful to the Minister for his remarks. I also ask him to pass on our thanks to the Home Secretary for the letter that she sent yesterday to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), the shadow Home Secretary, setting out this decision.
Let me make it absolutely clear that the Opposition support the motion. We support the decision to proscribe the four groups that the Minister mentioned, and the de-proscription of HIG. Any Government’s first duty is to protect the public, and Labour Members appreciate the difficult balance that has to be struck when considering the application of the test in section 3 of the 2000 Act.
I turn to the four groups to be proscribed. We certainly hope that that decision will assist in tackling terror activity and send from this House a powerful signal of condemnation of the activities of those groups. I would, however, make three observations, and I hope the Minister will take them in the constructive spirit in which they are intended.
First, public confidence in this process is very important and, although I of course appreciate that some matters have to remain confidential for reasons of national security, to the extent that it is possible, transparency is important. The Minister will be aware that the former independent reviewer of the terror legislation, David Anderson QC, made various suggestions in successive reports, including when considering these matters, looking at the cohesion and capability of organisations. It would be useful if the Government could respond in due course to David Anderson’s 2016 report and the suggestions made therein.
My second observation relates to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes): proscription is of course only one of the measures  available, and our ability to tackle terrorism, at whatever level and wherever it comes from, depends on proper resourcing of not only counter-terrorist policing but mainstream policing. When these terrible major incidents happen, it is not only counter-terror policing that is affected; resources are inevitably drawn in from mainstream policing as well. In addition, I commend neighbourhood policing, which not only provides reassurance in our communities, but can provide vital local intelligence in the fight against terrorism.
Thirdly, as we move on to the next stage of the Brexit negotiations, I hope that the Minister will speak to the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union about the toolkit available to us from the European arrest warrant and Europol to ensure that that is a high priority in this stage of the negotiations to enable us to tackle terrorism across the continent.
On the decision to de-proscribe HIG, as the Minister has set out, de-proscription is appropriate in some cases. Where it is appropriate, it should be promptly dealt with when the statutory test is no longer met. Again, however, I commend to the Minister as much transparency as possible on this decision. As recently as June of this year, a House of Commons Library briefing stated that HIG was believed to have some UK-based supporters, and there were indications that HIG had conducted attacks on Afghan and indeed western targets. Clarification of when the application to de-proscribe was made, when the statutory test ceased to be met and that this situation will be kept under review would be reassuring to Members across the House.
Above all, our counter-terror policy needs to be carefully thought out. Above everything else, it needs to be effective. The incidents this year at Westminster bridge, London bridge, Finsbury Park, Parson’s Green and the Ariana Grande concert in Manchester are a reminder of the terrible threat these callous acts cause to our society, but they also show the tremendous efforts of our emergency services, and the resolve and strength our communities have shown in the face of these threats should give us cause for great optimism.

Stuart McDonald: I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the background to the order and I am pleased to confirm that my party support approving it this evening.
Our task in scrutinising draft instruments of this nature is not always straightforward, for the simple reason that the Secretary of State has access to information and intelligence that we as MPs for very good reasons cannot have access to. However, given what the Minister has said this evening, there is no reason for me to doubt that the Secretary of State has exercised her discretion appropriately in deciding to proscribe two groups in Bahrain and two in Egypt; nor, indeed, to doubt her conclusion on de-proscription, given the developments in Afghanistan, although the shadow Minister raised a couple of sensible questions on that issue.
I want to make two short points. First, this de-proscription again raises the question of why proscription orders never lapse, despite recommendations from the former independent reviewer of terrorism and the Home Affairs Committee, and despite the fact that the Home Office itself has acknowledged that at least 14 proscribed organisations no longer meet the statutory test.
Secondly, I accept that, when deciding whether to exercise powers under the Terrorism Act 2000, it is right for the Secretary of State to take into account the need to support other members of the international community in tackling terrorism, but we have to look at the broader context in those countries as well. I echo the statement issued by the US State Department in June, when it too was taking action against individuals associated with the al-Ashtar brigades in Bahrain. The statement said of the Government of Bahrain that
“we encourage the government to clearly differentiate its response to violent militia groups from its engagement with peaceful political opposition”.
There are no excuses for the grave human rights abuses being perpetrated by the Governments in both Bahrain and Egypt. If anything, those human rights abuses risk assisting the recruiters for the very terrorist organisations that we are seeking to clamp down on.

Charles Walker: I thank the Minister for Security for his statement. It is much appreciated by my constituents that he and his team are working so hard to ensure their safety. This is an incredibly difficult challenge, because the threat keeps changing and it is always difficult for our security forces to identify the threat at each stage of its development. However, they are doing a fantastic job. It is important for the Minister to know that, when talking to our constituents, we all come across people who understand the enormity of the task that our security forces face and who respect the diligence with which they go about their business.
We face an incredibly difficult challenge. I look around the Chamber and see all my colleagues on electronic devices. We were talking yesterday about how electronic devices can spread hate and division. I know it is difficult for my right hon. Friend the Minister to be in everybody’s pocket, if that makes sense. It is difficult to have a police officer in everyone’s pocket, keeping an eye on what they are doing through social media, but these are the challenges that this country faces.

Stephen Kerr: I support the points that my hon. Friend is making. At this time of year, when we are all preparing for the Christmas and new year holidays, this statement is a great reminder to us all that there are, thankfully, men and women in our security services who are diligent and ceaseless in their surveillance and assessment of risk, to the point that this kind of measure can be brought to the House.

Charles Walker: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The people who work in our security forces do not get a day, an hour or even a minute off. They are constantly vigilant. I imagine that, even when they are not on duty, they take home their concerns and their enormous sense of responsibility to society. We should congratulate them and respect them for that.
We talked about the responsibility of the tech companies yesterday, we are talking about it today, and will probably go on talking about it tomorrow. They simply cannot say, “It’s nothing to do with us, guv. We just provide the platform.” That is no longer a sufficient excuse. Politicians around the world—particularly the free western world—are now identifying the fact that, if the tech companies are  not willing to address the problem or to challenge those who use their technology for nefarious and dangerous purposes, we as legislators are going to have to do that for them.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his statement and particularly congratulate him on his Arabic pronunciation. If he had my Ulster Scots accent, the challenge would perhaps have been greater, but that is by the way.
I am pleased with and can support the legislation the Minister is bringing forward today and the information that he has laid before us. He mentioned social media, as did other Members, including the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), and we perhaps need a bit more information on that. We all know that there are methods of recruiting terrorists, influencing terrorists, and influencing people who are not terrorists, but who could be terrorists, so what resources are available to ensure that the influence that some people can have through social media is spent? I read in the press yesterday that a far-right group had been removed by one of the big social media companies, so if they are able to do that with far-right groups, they should be able to do that with all terrorist groups. I am unsure whether cyber-security comes under the Minister’s remit, but we have to ensure that things are being done the right way. The Minister did not indicate where far-right groups stand, so perhaps he will confirm whether the Government are keeping an eye on their activities and on what they are doing and saying online, of which we should be ever mindful.
I want to reinforce a point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is not currently in the Chamber to hear this. I went before the Backbench Business Committee today with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) and the right hon. Member for Enfield North (Joan Ryan) to ask for a debate on the proscription of Hezbollah, and reference was made to the flags of proscribed organisations that were flown in central London. When that matter was referred to the police, they said that they could not take action due to some disparity over the rule of law. Many of us will be of the opinion that Hezbollah should be on the list and that the flying of its flag anywhere in this country, but particularly in London, should not be allowed, because Hezbollah sows a distinct hatred for Israel, for Israelis and for many others.
The Minister also referred to the Muslim Brotherhood. I am ever mindful that we have a good working relationship with President el-Sisi and the Egyptian Government, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Sir Jeffrey M. Donaldson) is the Prime Minister’s trade envoy to Egypt. He does good work, and we are pleased to see him in that position. From what the Minister says, I understand that we work closely alongside the Egyptian Government on matters relating to proscription, but will he reinforce our understanding of the Muslim Brotherhood?

Stephen Kerr: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, particularly those relating to the paraphernalia of extremism, which is all too often on public display. Will he add to his comments about social media? Social media platforms seem to  wash their hands of full responsibility for the things that are published, but that washing of hands would not be appropriate for any other publication or source of publishing. What would the hon. Gentleman like to see done?

Jim Shannon: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I want to see what has happened to the far-right groups. I want groups that espouse evil words and terrorist acts to be taken off social media. That is the action that we want, and I think the Minister is probably saying that, so we look forward to it.
Returning to the Muslim Brotherhood, it continues to be a difficult group that tends to try to undermine the Egyptian Government and President el-Sisi, and I want to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to ensure that democratic stability in the middle east can continue.

Wendy Morton: When we think about terrorism and counter-terrorism, it is easy to think in terms of world politics beyond our local communities. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the events of the past year show the importance of the work of our security services in keeping all our constituents safe? Also, will he join me in welcoming the Government’s recent announcement of extra funding for counter-terrorism?

Jim Shannon: Of course I welcome that announcement. I support our Government entirely in what they are doing. We would never do otherwise

John Spellar: I thank the hon. Gentleman —who, from his service with me on the Select Committee on Defence, I refer to as my hon. Friend—for giving way. Does he share my concern that there is a degree of complacency regarding the Muslim Brotherhood? Some organisations see the Muslim Brotherhood as running counter to terrorism, rather than, as in many cases, facilitators and inspirers of terrorism.

Jim Shannon: That is exactly the point I am trying to make to the Minister. We are very concerned about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood, and we all look to the Minister and our Government to respond in a satisfactory fashion.
As the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) said, I put on record our thanks to all our security forces, our police, MI5 and every one of the emergency services that have contributed so much over the past year. Both inside and outside the House, we owe them an eternal debt.

Rachel Maclean: I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Minister on his statement and on his work, a lot of which is completely unseen by our constituents.
My constituents in Redditch want to feel safe and secure at all times. We often see the high-profile plots—when those plots go tragically to plan, we all see the evil that is done on our streets—and we sometimes hear of the plots that are foiled, but I imagine most of us in this  House will not know of the many, many more plots that are continually foiled and of the work that goes on all the time.

Stephen Kerr: My hon. Friend mentions the occasions when the intelligence services have foiled the plotters and their dastardly plans. Will she comment on the importance of co-operation with the intelligence services of our friends and partners in Europe, in North America and across the world, and on the important part that passing intelligence between those agencies plays in making the picture more complete so that action can be taken to prevent loss of life in such incidents?

Rachel Maclean: My hon. Friend touches on the critical point that, even as we leave the European Union, we must seek to cement our deep and special partnership on all these matters—and with our friends in the United States, too—because it is clear that these are the relationships that are keeping all our constituents safe, day in, day out.
We cannot imagine what it must be like to work in the intelligence services. I cannot even begin to imagine for one second what it must be like to face such threats and such terror, how frightening it must be and how brave those men and women must be to face it every single day. I add my thanks to those of Members on both sides of the House who have put on record their thanks to those brave men and women who go out of their way every day to keep us safe, and I know my constituents in Redditch thank them, too.
While I am welcoming announcements, it is great to see that additional funding has been announced for the police service today. Significant funding has been pledged to my West Mercia region, which will undoubtedly help our police forces to work in partnership.

Kevan Jones: The hon. Lady should look at the detail of today’s announcement. No extra Government funding has been announced at all. What is happening is that the cash from central Government is being kept flat and her local taxpayers will be asked to fund the gap.

Rosie Winterton: Order. The hon. Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) will stick to the subject of this debate, which is not actually police funding.

Rachel Maclean: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I will return to the subject of my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I also want to put on record the importance of education in our schools. We have heard Members from both sides of the House mention the work our schools do in talking to young people about terrorism and the sorts of extremist threats we are seeing in our communities. At this time, it is also important to recognise the work of my local communities in Redditch. I am sure everyone will have seen the way in which local communities come together proactively when we are facing some of the most tragic events in our country. I saw that myself in Redditch in an all-faith service and celebration at my local mosque, where it was so inspiring to see everybody coming together in the face of these threats.

Wendy Morton: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the face of terrorism it is often so important that we, as communities and as a nation, demonstrate our coming together and our strength as a nation in our fight against terrorism and all that it holds?

Rachel Maclean: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She rightly celebrates that human spirit that is inside all of us. Sometimes it can take a tragic, awful, terrifying event to see the best of our human spirit shine forth. When I see that, I find it incredibly inspiring, and we should celebrate and recognise it.
It is also relevant to mention, as my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) did, yesterday’s statement, when we looked at the role of intimidation and abuse, and the link it can sometimes have to extremism when it is taken too far. It is important that we recognise that in the round of the work that the Minister is doing in his Department to combat terrorism in all the forms it takes. I am sure he is looking at the role social media companies play. It is absolutely right that they play a role; we face a holistic threat, so we need a holistic response. One problem with the social media companies is that their business model is completely wrong, because they rely on the clickbait they put out on their platforms to whip up hatred. That is how they make their money; they actually receive revenue from clicks. They do not have any regard to what they are disseminating into the public’s mind. It can spread into schools and communities, among young people. We should all be aware of that. The work the Home Secretary and her Department is doing needs to look at all these issues together. The tech companies have a really important role to play and I am pleased to see that the Government are taking further action here.
As the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said, we have to look at far right groups. We have to look at all groups that pose a threat to our communities and our society. We have seen disgusting examples of this recently, so I am delighted to hear that the Government are looking at all the threats together and I congratulate the Minister on today’s statement.

Stephen Kerr: I rise to add a few words of appreciation to the Minister for bringing this measure to the House and to compliment Members on how it has been received. I wish to pay a specific tribute to a number of different groups that are making our country safe. Mention has been made of our security services. It was said that the submariners represented the silent service, but in fact we have a modern-day silent service: those who are carefully and studiously monitoring what is going on, both online and all around us. So I pay tribute to our security services, and I do so on behalf of my constituents, who are the beneficiaries of their service, which, as has been mentioned, is a 365-day-a-year operation, day and night. That professionalism is what is keeping us safe. I join others in paying tribute to the security services—MI5 and MI6 were specifically mentioned, but many other branches of the security services are working together. It is because of their good work and the levels of co-operation between the national agencies not only of this country and our immediate allies but around the world that this order is possible.
I pay tribute to the work that is done locally to prepare for the eventualities that we all dread, fear and hope will never happen. Since becoming the Member of Parliament for Stirling, I have had the opportunity to spend time with the Police Scotland officers in my constituency. I have been hugely impressed with their professionalism and how they carefully and diligently prepare themselves for any eventuality. It is humbling to listen to what they are doing day in, day out in anticipation of an event that we all dread. As it expands the range of services it offers, under excellent national and local leadership, the fire and rescue service in Scotland is also being prepared and trained to respond to the type of incidents that, as Members have reminded us, have taken place in our country this year. Those events have deeply shocked and shaken us.
The third group of people who deserve to be mentioned in the context of the resilience and resolution the country has shown is the British public. The perfect answer to all the events of this year and to the ever-present threat that the Minister mentioned in his speech is that when these events happen, or when it is reported that they have been averted, the British public’s response is to just get up and carry on. That is the full measure of the spirit of the people of these islands and it has been demonstrated and exemplified time and again.
Several agencies are doing excellent work to continue to raise public awareness of the threat of terrorism. As a regular user of the national rail network, I wish to mention a successful awareness-raising campaign mounted by British Transport police called “See It. Say It. Sorted.”, which is intended to activate and engage the British public in their role as the eyes and ears of the security forces on the ground, both locally and nationally.
I welcome the evidence of the intelligence services’ continuous assessment of the environment in which we all live and operate. We should remember the bravery and courage of those who this year have shown again the British people’s resilience, especially in response to the events we sadly witnessed that took place very close to the Chamber, before my time in Parliament.

Wendy Morton: My hon. Friend is making a great case and setting out the important contribution that so many people make to keep us safe. Does he also recognise the volunteers who make up local neighbourhood watch groups—I am sure you have some in your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker—because although they may not be at the forefront of counter-terrorism work, they are still part of the effort to gather intelligence and keep abreast of what is going on?

Stephen Kerr: I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention, because it is a reminder of the point that I wish to make and enforce. When it comes to counter-terrorism, intelligence gathering and the sharing of information, we have an important part to play as individual citizens. My hon. Friend has just described the great tradition of our doing that in this country.

John Spellar: The overwhelming evidence from senior counter-terrorism officers is that much of the useful information they gather comes from ordinary beat police officers who are involved in their local communities. Is not it therefore deplorable that the Government have cut funding to the Metropolitan police in particular and are thereby denuding that capability?

Stephen Kerr: I am a Scottish Member of Parliament, but I understand that matters relating to the budgets of the Metropolitan police may be decided by the Mayor of London, just as similar such budgets in Scotland are decided by the Scottish Government. I do not want to introduce any controversy to the things that I am trying to say, because this is not necessarily a moment for any kind of party posturing.

Kevin Foster: Does my hon. Friend agree that this is about not just funding, but the powers that the police have and the regulatory system that has been set up? All too often we have seen opposition to some of those powers by the Labour party, even though we might get some welcome consensus on these powers in relation to proscribed groups.

Stephen Kerr: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I strongly urge the hon. Member for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) to return to the motion before us.

Stephen Kerr: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to conclude my remarks if I may by referring back to the comments of the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) when he responded to my intervention about social media. I feel very strongly that the time has come for social media companies, with all their resources, to do something more than they have been doing in this area. For too long, too much has gone onto those platforms without appropriate intervention. I feel very strongly that they are things that we would not permit to be published in mainstream, traditional, and old-fashioned material. Why on earth would we turn a blind eye to it when it is on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube or whatever—there are other social platforms as well. The Minister’s statement has brought home again the importance of dealing with that issue. I know that the Government are dealing with it and that they are stepping up their discussions with these social media companies. I appreciate that much is improving and changing, but, again, I am reminded today that perhaps for too long we have been guilty of that traditional British virtue of being too tolerant about some things for which, really, there must be zero tolerance.

Ben Wallace: With the leave of the House, I will reply to the points made by hon. and right hon. Members. I will, if I may, reflect on the tributes that have been made by my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Stephen Kerr) and for Broxbourne (Mr Walker) and by other Members of the House to the people who are working, as we speak, to keep us safe.
This morning, in Sheffield and in other parts of the north of England, there were a number of raids in which the police and security services disrupted what potentially was the 10th plot to cause us harm by some pretty determined terrorists, and they will keep going. The results of that raid will mean that investigators and detectives will have to work throughout Christmas and new year. In offices up and down the country, there will be people on duty—I am talking about the emergency services, the police, and intelligence officers. Even a Minister will be on duty at Christmas and new year as well. These people carry out their job unseen, often in  some of the harshest conditions. They often have to deal with the aftermath for the rest of their lives, especially if they are first responders, ambulance personnel or police who are on the scene when an attack happens.
Over the past year, I have spent a lot of time in Manchester, meeting some quite remarkable people who were present when the bomb went off and throughout the process. They have never stopped trying to bring justice and comfort to the victims. At the same time, they have to live with the things they saw on that day. Those people not only demand, but deserve our respect and support.
The Home Secretary and I strongly believe that al-Ashtar brigades, al-Mukhtar brigades, Hasam and Liwa al-Thawra should be added and that HIG should be removed from the list of proscribed organisations in schedule 2 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
In answer to some of the points raised by Members on the Opposition Front Bench, the request for de-proscription of HIG was on 19 September 2017. I cannot comment on who made that request, but there was an application and we responded to it.
I totally agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) about the comments made by the former reviewer of terrorism legislation. For the rule of law and this law itself to be valid, we have to show that we change when the evidence changes. People may be particularly distasteful but when they move into violence or terrorism, we must act. We must also be in a position to help our friends and allies around the world who are sometimes the victims of terrorist organisations, and ensure that their concerns are heard.
Hon. Members have mentioned Hezbollah, Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups. Groups such as those are constantly under review to see whether they engage in terrorism. If they do—for example, if the non-military wing is viewed as not separate—we will review the situation, use the law and take the required steps. Proscription works: 51 people have been charged with membership of proscribed groups and 32 have been convicted. There are currently 71 proscribed international groups and 14 Northern Ireland groups. The law enforcement agencies often tell us how useful proscription is, and we will always listen to any changes they request. Indeed, we would also listen if they felt that the regime did not work. I am sure that the Opposition Front Benchers would do exactly the same. Proscription is a tool for us to stay within the rule of law.
Over the past few weeks and months, we have heard a lot about dealing with terrorism. The big thing that we have heard on the difference between us and terrorists is that we believe in the rule of law with the oversight of this House. We make sure that we are better than them. Measures such as proscription are very important in forcing the Government, quite rightly, to mark out why they think something should be proscribed, and in holding those groups to account. But when the evidence changes, we change with it.
Hon. Members mentioned Brexit. As we have said and will continue to say, we seek tools similar to the European arrest warrant, which we find incredibly useful. It helps us and our law enforcement agencies. The Home Office and the Department for Exiting the European Union published the security paper that made many of those points clear.
The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said that there are no new resources for the police. I am sorry to correct him, but today we announced £71 million more money for counter-terrorism policing. That is new money, on top of the £24 million increase we gave the police in response to the attacks and the £144 million armed uplift that we gave them post-Nice to ensure that our armed police are well-equipped to deal with threats.

Kevan Jones: Yes, I recognise that.

Andrew Griffiths: But you were wrong.

Kevan Jones: From a sedentary position on the Treasury Bench, the hon. Gentleman says that I was wrong, but I was not. In Durham and other places, the flat budget for police funding from central Government will have to be made up by local taxpayers. Taking into account the pay increase and inflation, that will amount to a real-terms cut.

Ben Wallace: I heard the hon. Gentleman during the statement earlier. The question I could ask about the police funding settlement is: will police have more to spend on policing in their force areas after the statement today by the Minister for Policing and the Fire Service? The answer is yes. We can argue about whether this is from the core grant plus the precept, but the reality is that the police will be spending more on policing in the next year than they were last year. That is a fact.

Kevan Jones: Will the Minister give way?

Ben Wallace: I will, but this is about proscription.

Rosie Winterton: Order. I really want to ensure that we return to the subject of this debate.

Kevan Jones: For counter-terrorism, the Minister is correct; there will be more money for counter-terrorism. But unless he can read the tea leaves and predict that every single policy authority will put the maximum on local precepts, he cannot give the undertaking on frontline policing that he has just given.

Ben Wallace: No Minister at this Dispatch Box can ever guarantee what a police force will do, because the police have independence in their forces. If the hon. Gentleman were on this side of the debate, he would not be able to give guarantees because he would know that police forces have operational independence. How much is spent is a matter for the police and crime commissioner and the police. That is why some forces have grown their reserves—some by over 100%. [Interruption.] Not Durham. I think it is the one force that probably has not. That is because the chief constable is from Lancashire; he is a proper chief constable—it takes one to teach people.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) about online, which was mentioned by many other Members, the Government recognise the real challenges. That is why, a number of years ago, we set up the CT referral unit, which has seen 300,000 pieces of offensive or terrorist material taken down on request.  It is a permanent unit that requests, and works with, communications service providers to take that material down.
However, of course we have said that we want the providers to do more. We want them to invest some of their very large profits in technologies to improve the speed of these things. We think they can do more, and that is why my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister, through the Global Internet Forum, are leading international efforts to deal with this issue.
One of the challenges, obviously, with online is that many of these people are based overseas, and as much as I would like to take immediate action in some areas, we simply do not have the power to do that in other countries. It is incredibly frustrating to the Government that, on National Action, which we proscribed almost this time last year, an internet company in the United States refuses to take down some of its propaganda and some of its material. I have not checked whether it has been taken down in the last few days, but that situation is incredibly frustrating, and we are working with the United States to apply more pressure in that space.
I have already answered the points around Hezbollah and Hamas. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) that it is right that the point about what the services do is absolutely clear. That is why proscribing organisations gives the services extra power to their elbow to deal with them. It also means that people charged with terrorist offences—TACT offences—can and will often receive much more hefty sentences. That is why we are determined to continue at the moment to use this legislation.
I would like to put on record my thanks to the Labour party, the Scottish National party and the Democratic Unionist party for their support for this measure tonight. Proscription is not targeted at any particular faith or social group, but it is based on clear evidence that an organisation is concerned in terrorism. It is my and the Home Secretary’s firm opinion that, on the basis of the available evidence, all four groups in the order meet the statutory test for proscription and that it is appropriate in each case for the Home Secretary to exercise her discretion to proscribe these groups. The proscription of these groups demonstrates our condemnation of their activities. Proscribing them will also enable the police to carry out disruptive action against any supporters in the UK and to ensure that they cannot operate here.
It is also our firm opinion that, on the basis of the available evidence, HIG no longer meets the statutory test for proscription. However, as with all groups, we will continue to monitor its activity to make sure that it stays within the rule of the law and abides by the law. It is therefore appropriate in this case for the Home Secretary to remove HIG from the list of proscribed organisations in accordance with the de-proscription process set out.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I wish you, and all Members of the House, a safe and secure Christmas? May I ask that Members remind their constituents to be vigilant over the festive period? Unfortunately, the threat has not gone away. However, I hope that, by being vigilant and by supporting our law enforcement agencies, our intelligence services and our other emergency services, all Members have a safe and happy Christmas. Therefore, I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Terrorism Act 2000 (Proscribed Organisations) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 18 December, be approved.

LAW ENFORCEMENT CO-OPERATION AND BORDER CONTROL: SCHENGEN INFORMATION SYSTEM

Nick Hurd: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15812/16, a Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals, and No.15814/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU; agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals; and further agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt out of proposals on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System in the field of police co-operation and judicial co-operation in criminal matters.
I thank the European Scrutiny Committee for calling this debate, which is about the EU’s second-generation Schengen information system, known more commonly as SIS II. I am also grateful to the Committee for the report it published last Friday to inform our debate tonight. I expect that many of the points made in that report will be raised this evening. In any event, I will reply formally to the Committee in writing.
SIS II is the EU’s automated system for circulating policing alerts to law enforcement officers across the EU and in non-EU countries that also take part in it. Alerts can be created in a number of categories, including people who are wanted under a European arrest warrant, suspected criminals, security risks on whom information is sought, and objects that need to be seized such as stolen vehicles and passports. We have taken part in SIS II since April 2015, although we operate only its police and judicial co-operation aspects and not those that support the passport-free Schengen area. We make SIS II alerts available to police officers in real time, and high-priority alerts are also made available at the border. This allows wanted people to be stopped and arrested on arrival, preventing them from posing a risk to the public. SIS II is therefore one of the most important EU policing tools that we have at our disposal.
Last December, the European Commission proposed three draft regulations to replace the legislation that currently governs SIS II. These consisted of one draft regulation to cover the police and judicial co-operation aspects of the system, one to govern its Schengen border control aspects, and a third that allows alerts to be circulated on non-EU nationals who have been subject to removal action in a member state. We are excluded from the regulation on border control as it builds on the aspects of the passport-free Schengen area that we do not take part in. The regulation on non-EU nationals subject to removal action would have applied to us only if we opted into it. The police and judicial co-operation measure would apply to us unless we opted out of it. The deadline for both opting in and opting out was 2 July. This means, as will be obvious to the House, that the Government have already had to take the decisions that we are debating, although I still hope that the House will endorse them.
Let me first explain the Government’s decision not to opt into the proposal on circulating information on non-EU nationals subject to removal action—the so-called returns regulation. This draft regulation would allow member states to circulate alerts on non-EU nationals to whom they have issued a decision requiring them to leave their territory. There could be some benefits to knowing this, as it might give us information about the immigration history of someone who tries to enter the UK or who comes to the attention of law enforcement while here.
However, in the Government’s view, the proposal is too closely linked to another piece of legislation that we do not take part in—the 2008 returns directive. This sets out common rules subject to Court of Justice of the European Union jurisdiction that govern the way in which member states return non-EU nationals who have no right to be in their countries. We do not take part in it because we think that these issues should remain under national control. The Commission has been very clear throughout the negotiations that we could not opt into the returns regulation without also joining the 2008 directive.

Peter Grant: Have the Government had legal advice to confirm the Commission’s view, or are they simply accepting the Commission’s view? Have they conducted any assessment to demonstrate the balance between the benefits to our safety and security from opting in compared with the benefits from complying with the Government’s refusal to have anything to do with the European Court of Justice?

Nick Hurd: My understanding is that the Commission’s decision was based on legal advice that we accept.
I hope that the House will agree with our decision not to opt into the returns regulation. The draft police co-operation regulation would replace the 2007 legislation that governs this aspect of SIS II and would bring in a number of useful changes. For example, it would allow pre-emptive alerts to be created for children who are in danger of going missing through parental abduction rather than allowing for alerts only after the child has disappeared, as now. It would also allow member states’ law enforcement to ask specific questions of people on whom information is sought via an alert, and it would update SIS II’s technical standards.
However, there were some aspects of the proposals that we were less happy with. For example, the original text proposed to make it compulsory to create alerts in cases involving terrorism, with implications for the autonomy of our police and security services. We wanted to be clear in the regulation that none of the new actions that it provides for would require police to act contrary to national law, but we felt that we would be better able to address these issues if we did not opt out and thus continued to participate fully in the negotiations with a vote.

Bob Neill: I welcome the Minister’s pragmatic approach. The Justice Committee looked at the matter when we published our report in the last Parliament on the implications of Brexit for the legal system. It was very clear from the evidence given to us that a continuing involvement for SIS II in criminal justice and judicial matters is very much to our advantage, even though there may be some aspects that we will  need to discuss, so I support him in his approach. Will he bear in mind the important issue of making sure that we have the proper data arrangements to enable us lawfully to exchange such information, as we wish to?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention and for his support of the Government’s position, based as it is on evidence received by the Committee that he chairs. I take on board fully his point about data.
I was saying that we had concerns about the proposal in the original text to make it compulsory to create alerts in cases involving terrorism. We felt in general that we would be better able to address the issues if we did not opt out, and thus continued to participate fully in the negotiations with a vote. Our feeling is that opting out at this stage would have sent the message that we sought to pull back from co-operating with our law enforcement and security partners after Brexit, and that is not the message that we want to give. On the contrary, we have always been clear that it is in the interests of both the UK and the EU that we continue to co-operate across borders through a range of tools, measures and agencies even after we have left the EU. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the Government’s position clear in her speech in Florence this September:
“It is our ambition to work as closely as possible together with the EU, protecting our people, promoting our values and ensuring the future security of our continent. The United Kingdom is unconditionally committed to maintaining Europe’s security.”
The exact details of our future relationship with the EU on internal security will need to be agreed in the negotiations.

Bob Neill: Again, I welcome the Government’s pragmatic approach. The evidence to our Committee stressed not only that we should be looking at SIS II, but that it comes as part of a suite of measures that include access to Eurojust, to the other databases in the Schengen Information System, right across the piece, and to other information exchange arrangements and databases. Can the Minister confirm that it is our intention to seek a co-operative relationship across the raft of criminal justice co-operation measures?

Nick Hurd: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive intervention and for his support for the principles that the Prime Minister laid out strongly. He will understand that the exact details of the future internal security relationship with the EU will need to be agreed in the negotiations. The Government’s paper on the future partnership that we seek with the EU on security, law enforcement and criminal justice makes it clear that we value our current capability to share law enforcement and security alerts with EU countries. That capability is provided by SIS II, but how we might retain similar capability after Brexit is a matter for negotiation.
The exit negotiations are an opportunity to build on what we have already achieved through decades of collaboration and working together. The decision to opt out would suggest that we wished to move in the opposite direction and disengage from security co-operation with Europe. That is not, and cannot be, our position, so it would have been wrong to opt out.
Before I wind up, I want to touch on how the negotiations on these legislative proposals have progressed. The Council of Ministers has recently agreed a general approach on  all three draft regulations. That is an agreed Council position to form a basis for negotiations on the final text with the European Parliament. The police co-operation text was satisfactory in most respects. In particular, it gives member states sufficient discretion over whether to create alerts in counter-terrorist cases. But the Government voted against it because it did not address the restrictions on when alerts can be used for purposes other than those for which they were created.
In some limited circumstances, such an alert would be advisable; for example, where the alert shows that a person is particularly dangerous and needs to be kept out of the country. Unfortunately, the text on the general approach continues to make doing this too difficult, so we did not think it was ready for negotiation with the European Parliament. However, there was a qualified majority in favour of the text, and these negotiations are now under way. We expect the incoming Bulgarian presidency of the Council to try to conclude them in the first half of 2018. We will of course keep the European Scrutiny Committee updated.
The Government’s decisions show that we are committed both to protecting our borders and to effective co-operation with our European partners on policing and security issues, and I hope that the House will endorse them tonight.

Louise Haigh: I confirm that the Opposition support the motion before us, and I echo the Minister’s thanks to the European Scrutiny Committee for bringing forward this debate, because the motion raises some important questions about our national security and the consequences and potential implications of Brexit.
Our security, and the apparatus on which it rests, is utterly dependent on co-operation with our European partners. The UK should be rightly proud of the role it has played in establishing and developing our shared security through Europol, the European arrest warrant and the Schengen information system. As the Minister says, SIS II is already proving its worth, helping to underpin the operation of the EAW and delivering 12,000 hits on suspected criminals and terrorists since its introduction in 2015. It has been a game-changer for policing leaders and for day-to-day policing.
We know what the Prime Minister makes of the SIS II system from what she told the House of Commons in November 2014, when she also said that support for it is vital
“to stop foreign criminals from coming to Britain, deal with European fighters coming back from Syria, stop British criminals evading justice abroad, prevent foreign criminals evading justice by hiding here, and get foreign criminals out of our prisons”.
However, without an agreement and a commitment that this will be foremost in the Government’s negotiating priorities, this apparatus will all fall away the second we Brexit.
Quite frankly, it is astonishing that the Government have given no guarantees that we will seek to retain full access to SIS II on our departure from the EU. Despite underlining its importance in the position paper earlier this year, in a letter to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister said it was “too early to say” whether  SIS II will be one of the measures that the Government will seek to include in a new post-Brexit agreement. The Committee has noted that
“there is no justification for this reticence.”
Our security depends on it, but we know why Ministers are showing such reticence. It is because of the role of the European Court of Justice and the EU charter of fundamental rights.
The Prime Minister has made it abundantly clear that there will be no permanent role for the ECJ, and the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill has explicitly dumped the EU charter. However, there is no precedent for a country to operate within SIS II—nor to operate the European arrest warrant, for that matter—without accepting that the ECJ will play a leading role. Indeed, the regulations before us explicitly prohibit third-country access to SIS II data. In his letter to the European Scrutiny Committee, the Minister attempted to suggest areas where countries do not submit directly to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, but in the case of SIS II, the precedent is clear: whether direct or indirect, the determinations of the European Court are final.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making some very important points. Does she not agree that this puts paid to the crazy suggestion of having no deal, because getting a deal on a security treaty will be absolutely crucial to the safety and security of this nation?

Louise Haigh: My hon. Friend is absolutely right that no deal is simply not acceptable for security or for data, which I will come on to shortly.
The Minister mentioned that four non-EU countries are members of SIS II, which is absolutely right. Iceland, Norway, Switzerland and Liechtenstein participate by virtue of their membership of Schengen. These non-EU member states are bound to avert any substantial differences in the case law of the ECJ, and they are required to implement structures and procedures that keep pace with changes in the Schengen rulebook. If they do not do so, their agreements will be terminated.

Bob Neill: I understand precisely where the hon. Lady is coming from, but in fairness to the Minister, this may be a question about the direct nature or otherwise of the jurisdiction. Does she agree that the evidence to the Justice Committee was most compelling about the practical need to get the data regulations aligned so that data can lawfully be passed from EU member states to us as a third country in the same way that they are passed to the four non-EU countries she has mentioned?

Louise Haigh: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because he pre-empts my next point.
At the heart of these strictures is the issue of data. All SIS II systems operate on a hub-and-spoke model, with a central SIS II hub exchanging data from national servers in each participating member state. The European Commission is very clear that this is European data. Although the police may have some leeway on the speed at which they create an alert, once they do, the data passes to the central SIS II hub. Therefore, without an  agreement on data transfers, we simply cannot participate in this critical information-sharing system. That is the insanity of having no deal.
The proposals before the House require compliance with EU data protection laws and fundamental rights enshrined in the EU charter. The EU will insist on these rights being protected in order for the UK to share information, so what exactly do the Government propose? Can the Minister reassure the House that no arbitrary red lines, on the ECJ or otherwise, will be put before the safety and security of the British public? Will the he confirm that it is the UK’s negotiating aim to retain full access to SIS II? If not, can he explain how after Brexit we would track the hundreds, if not thousands, of serious criminals, foreign fighters and those who pose a threat to our national security who are flagged by the system every month? There are few areas in which the UK is more dependent on agreement than security co-operation as we Brexit. The consequences of failure are scarcely imaginable.
The regulations before us tonight are necessary to maintain our membership of SIS II for the time being and for our negotiating position, but they signify the huge risk that Brexit poses to our national security and the gaping holes in the Government’s approach to negotiations. We will support the motions and any and all of the Government’s efforts to maintain access to such security systems and close co-operation with our European partners, but we will continue to hold the Government to account on their approach to negotiations that are so fundamental to our national security.

Bill Cash: This is the first of the European Scrutiny Committee’s reports to be debated on the Floor of the House in this Parliament. It is a great pity that the Committee was not set up somewhat earlier, but we have lived with that and managed to get through all the documents. We are now having this first debate.
In a nutshell, I have 16 questions for the Minister. He will be glad to know that I am happy to write to him with the details of the questions, many of which are set out in our report, so I do not need to go through them all now. They are important questions and I am absolutely sure that he will reply. If we have any further questions, we will continue to ask them until we get the right answers. There are, however, one or two matters that I want to deal with now.
The first matter relates to what the Minister said about the European Court of Justice. He said:
“There is…significant precedent for the EU to cooperate with third countries”—
which of course is what we will become—
“including in fields closely aligned to areas of EU law. There is no precedent for a third country to submit to the jurisdiction of the CJEU”
He of course is completely right. I made that point only a few weeks ago in a debate on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, when I invoked the former Belgian member of the European Court who said that there was no precedent for a third country submitting to the jurisdiction of that Court.
The Minister referred to the agreement between the EU and Iceland and Norway. There are other examples. Dispute settlement procedures in EU agreements with  Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova involve an arbitration panel that is required to seek a ruling from the Court of Justice on questions concerning the interpretation of relevant EU law provisions. The Prime Minister referred to that indirectly in her statement yesterday, but what form of arbitration panel we will have is part of the ongoing negotiations. I have raised this myself several times on the Floor of the House in the past few months. Martin Howe, who is a great and distinguished QC, has put forward various proposals and we know that they are under active consideration by the Government.
The Committee highlights those examples to illustrate the point that there is a wide spectrum of possible outcomes on the role and jurisdiction of the Court. We ask the Minister to indicate which the Government would prefer or rule out in any future agreement between the EU and the UK on security, law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation.
On the charter, the proposed police co-operation regulation, which we are primarily concerned with today, introduces a recital stating—this is important—that it
“respects the fundamental rights and observes the principles recognised in particular by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.”
The Minister tells us that
“matters such as complying with the EU Charter”
will need to be addressed during the expected negotiations. As we well know, because we have passed that point in the passage of the withdrawal Bill, under the Bill as currently drafted the charter will not form part of domestic law on or after exit day. We therefore ask the Minister to explain how the Government intend to address the charter as part of the UK’s exit negotiations.
Various questions remain outstanding. We take the view that this is an important issue and that there are ongoing questions about the European arrest warrant. I have the 16 questions I will be sending to the Minister. We will publish both the questions and the Minister’s replies in due course, so the House may be properly informed as to where this is going, which is, at the moment, part and parcel of the negotiations.

Peter Grant: I am grateful for the chance to contribute to this debate. I am also immensely grateful to the many Members who did not speak earlier, as it means that we have got to this motion about four and a half hours earlier than we had at one point feared. We should not allow that to detract from the importance of the subjects we are debating today.
The Scottish National party’s position is that membership of the European Union makes us safer, and it supports co-operation between law enforcement and security services throughout democratic western Europe. Anything that weakens that co-operation is to be at least regretted and resisted if at all possible. I welcome the decision to opt in to one of these EU documents, and we will not oppose the decision to opt out, but it is disappointing that we did not have time for a fuller debate on the decision when there was still time to change it. As a former member of the European Scrutiny Committee under the very capable chairmanship of the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), I believe that there is still a degree of frustration at the Government’s reluctance to grant debates, either in the Chamber or in Committee,  timeously at the request of the Committee. The situation is not as bad as it was, but there is still an issue around the Government not complying properly with the procedures that the House has put in place, so that Parliament can scrutinise what the Government are doing on our behalf on the European Union.
I want first to talk about the document that relates to the operation of European arrest warrants and related matters. It is important to realise just why the warrant is such a vital part of our protection against terrorism and organised crime, and why it is important that the system continues after we leave the European Union.
Since 2011, there have been 541 cases in Scottish courts, where proceedings were taken after an arrest under the European arrest warrant scheme. A total of 367 people were extradited from Scotland to face justice elsewhere and 45 people were brought back to Scotland to face justice in the Scottish courts. That is over 400 people across Europe who were wanted for serious crimes and tried to use international borders to hide from the law, but who found that the European arrest warrant prevented them from doing that. The warrant allowed every one of those 400-plus people to be extradited to face trial much more quickly, and with far fewer opportunities for legal loopholes, than previous extradition treaties alone would have allowed. It will not be enough if the European arrest warrant is replaced with extradition treaties. We need to make sure the European arrest warrant continues in no weaker a form than its current one.
The figures I quoted have already increased in the very short time that SIS II has been in place in the UK. In the first full year of its operation, there was a 25% increase in the number of people arrested in the UK under an EAW, simply because the police had much more detailed, accurate and—most importantly—quicker information on the people they were dealing with. That is more than one additional arrest in the UK every day of the year. Over 400 suspected criminals a year are being taken off our streets who might still be on them if SIS II was not in operation. That is the scale of the benefit we derive from the system and the scale of the risk we face if it is not replaced by something equally effective after we leave the EU.
We therefore welcome the decision to opt into participation in SIS II, but we remain concerned about the longer-term implications of leaving the EU, particularly on the terms the Government have set out so far. On the continued decision not to opt into the draft returns regulation, document No. 15812/16, the Minister told the European Scrutiny Committee in his letter of 20 July this year that opting in
“would pose a risk to national control over how we remove people with no right to be here”.
He expanded on that by referring to the Government’s reluctance to have anything subject to the Court of Justice of the European Union.
Clearly this is not the place or time to challenge the Government’s position on the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice, but their inflexibility over the status of the Court prevents us from deriving the additional benefits we would enjoy if we were part of the new returns regulation. In the Minister’s own words to the Committee earlier in the year,
“in principle there would be some benefit in knowing whether individuals seeking entry to the UK, or who had come here illegally, had been ordered to leave another Member State”.
That should not come as any surprise. Any licence holder of a pub could tell us that, if they are given information on people thrown out of other places, it is easier to keep them out of their place so that they cannot cause trouble there. It is easy to see that it would be useful to know that somebody had only pitched up at the UK border because they had been thrown out of every other decent country in western Europe.
The Government are willing, however, to sacrifice that additional assurance simply because they do not want us to have anything to do with the Court of Justice of the European Union. I will ask the Minister again the question he did not answer when I intervened on him earlier: what assessment have the Government made to show the benefits for security and safety that we might gain from opting in, compared with the benefits they claim we will achieve by opting out in its entirety from the European Court of Justice?
I have several other concerns about what the Government are proposing to replace SIS II after we have left the EU. I will not go into these in detail, however, because the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh) summed them up very well. At the moment, as with so much else on Brexit, we know what we are leaving, but we have absolutely no idea where we are going. On the safety and security of our citizens, we are getting close to the time when we really need certainty and answers.
We have asked the Minister to tell us what assessment has been made of the potential benefits of opting in. The hon. Member for Stone has asked this. If not the European Court of Justice, what dispute resolution mechanism will the Government support that will allow citizens of the UK or other EU countries to challenge the legality of data sharing in relation to criminal matters? We know what they do not want; it is high time they told us what they do want and gave us an indication that the Europeans are willing to give them what they do want. Will the UK Government be seeking a data adequacy decision from the EU before the end of the article 50 negotiations? What is plan B if that decision is not forthcoming or goes against us? If we do not get a data adequacy decision before we leave the EU, data sharing cannot happen. What happens then?
On the concerns that the Minister raised about the earlier draft of the regulations, I am puzzled to know in what circumstances we would want the police to do anything other than alert their colleagues in other European countries if they were dealing with a case involving terrorism. I thought that the whole point of the Schengen information system, and other data sharing among law enforcement agencies, was that crime and terrorism do not respect international borders. If policing is to be effective, the police must sometimes cross borders as well. That does not mean that they will physically chase people across borders as a matter of routine, but information sharing across borders must be made as easy, as free of bureaucracy and as free of legal challenge as possible. The reason the European arrest warrant works more effectively than a simple extradition treaty is that the process is so much faster. People can be returned to the jurisdiction where they are wanted and put on trial much more quickly—sometimes years more quickly—than was possible previously.
We will not force the motion to a vote. We do not want to oppose what the Government are doing, but at present they are not doing enough. We will need to see something very definite very quickly, so that people can rest assured that leaving the European Union will not produce the reduction in our safety and security that it currently seems it might well produce.

Kate Green: I shall speak only briefly, and very specifically, about the implications of SIS II and the new regulation on the protection of children.
Police and judicial co-operation and the necessary cross-border infrastructures and mechanisms referred to earlier by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, are very important to child protection. Increasingly, victims of complex cross-border crime are children: they are victims of, for example, trafficking, sexual exploitation and online abuse. As the Minister said, the new regulation will support a more proactive alert system in relation to children who are at risk of going missing, and that includes cases of parental abduction. It will mean that pre-emptive alerts can be placed on the system to enable the authorities to act before a child goes missing rather than afterwards.
While I welcome the Government’s decision not to opt out of this part of the SIS and the increased protection for children, I am—like my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Louise Haigh)—concerned about the position if we leave the European Union in March 2019, and the possible uncertainty about the security and crime co-operation arrangements that will then be in place. I understand that the new measures that are currently being discussed in the EU are likely to be agreed before the Government’s intended exit date, but unlikely to be implemented until later. It is not clear whether they might be implemented during a potential two-year transition period, or even after that.
The Minister said that the Government want to be able to negotiate new arrangements for security law enforcement and criminal justice co-operation, but, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley, my good friend the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), who chairs the European Scrutiny Committee, has received a letter from the Minister which leaves us none the wiser about what specific measures such an arrangement might include.
Let me say very strongly to the Minister that the protection and welfare of children must be paramount in any new arrangements that are negotiated, and that includes seeking to maintain the benefits that we currently secure from our participation in SIS II and the stronger protections that the new regulation will introduce. There are practical questions about how that will be achieved. We heard about some of the circumstances relating to third countries that cannot create or enter alerts in SIS II, or use the infrastructure to search the system and exchange information. I understand that under article 62 of the proposed regulation, that will continue to be the case, and that, post-Brexit, the UK would not be able to benefit from the data that some offer, and to lodge data as we can now.
It is true, as we heard, that other countries have been able to agree specific access arrangements with the European Union. Does the Minister think that the UK  could follow a similar route to maintain access, particularly in relation to child protection, and thus effectively remain within the ambit of SIS II? In that case, article 62 would have to be amended, or is the Minister thinking of some other arrangement for the UK to access and enter information? Failing such an arrangement with the EU if we leave in March 2019, does the Minister think it will be necessary, or indeed possible, for us to have bilateral arrangements with each of the 27 EU countries? If that is the route that he envisages we might have to follow, what assessment has he made of the risks it would pose to children and how would they be mitigated?
Finally, even if we are able to remain in some way within the SIS II system and continue to share and deposit information, there would be gaps in protecting children if we leave the EU and lose the provisions of Brussels II in relation to family law. Yesterday’s written ministerial statement in response to the Justice Committee report on the implications of Brexit for the justice system was quite complacent about alternatives to Brussels II. There are potentially catastrophic consequences for children and families as we face considerable uncertainty about the loss of provisions in Brussels II that govern choice of law and enforcement.
We are not talking about whether the EU is dictating and making our laws; we are talking about mechanisms that enable us to ensure that protections and enforcement measures and access to information and the sharing of information can continue to be used and enforced if we leave the EU. In particular, mechanisms must be put in place to ensure that there is no weakening of the protection currently available to ensure the safeguarding of children. I hope the Minister will in his concluding remarks be able to give some assurances that that will remain paramount in the Government’s thinking.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his remarks, and want to state clearly for the record that my party and I will support the Government’s position on this matter.
I have debated the Schengen agreement before, not in this House but wearing a different hat in the Northern Ireland Assembly. At that time, I was discussing the merits of Schengen in relation to the common travel area with the Republic of Ireland. Bertie Ahern, who was then in office—that shows we are going a fair way back in time, and shows, too, my age—had determined that Schengen was not necessary for the Republic and felt that our cross-border co-operation was more than adequate. Bertie Ahern might have moved on and there might be a completely different man in his place, but the facts that prevented us from taking Schengen then apply now. We need no hard border, but if the Republic needs one, it can feel free to erect and pay for that on its side. We are a part of the UK and there is no back door to Ireland through any European proposal coming our way.
I am not going to pretend that there is no issue in leaving Schengen behind completely; it is useful to share criminal information among police forces, and I know that we will be working hard to secure some form of information sharing at the same level. The second-generation Schengen information system, which features highly in any argument about the merits of Schengen co-operation, is a database of real-time alerts about individuals and objects—such as vehicles—of interest  to EU law enforcement agencies. It includes information on people wanted under a European arrest warrant, suspected foreign fighters returning from Syria or elsewhere, and missing people. It contains some 70 million alerts on individuals or objects likely to be of interest to border control and law enforcement authorities. Alerts created in any of the 29 countries operating SIS II are stored in a central database and are immediately accessible to around 2 million end users. This is of great importance to our decision making. There is no doubt that it is of benefit, and we must attempt to secure a shared information system that is beneficial to Europe as well as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, but we are leaving Europe and to enhance Schengen and adopt these resolutions at this time is sheer madness. That is why I believe the Government are right to consider only adopting regulation 3 pertaining to police co-operation.
This is a two-way street, and let us not underestimate or undervalue the role of our intelligence agencies throughout Europe and across the world. We have premier policing and intelligence capabilities, and access to it for matters of cross-border security are not simply important to us but necessary to the safety of those in Europe. That is why we are happy to continue to share the information in the way that we have previously done, while still holding on to our sovereign right to determine who goes and who stays, and when they go and when they stay.
My party, the Democratic Unionist party, and I support the Government on this issue. The proposal is sensible and necessary, and this is another simple message to Europe that we are taking our sovereignty back, but that we still wish to be good neighbours and play the game that benefits us all.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 15812/16, a Proposal for Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals, and No. 15814/16, a Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System (SIS) in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters, amending Regulation (EU) No 515/2014 and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1986/2006, Council Decision 2007/533/JHA and Commission Decision 2010/261/EU; agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt in to proposals on the use of the Schengen Information System for the return of illegally staying third-country nationals; and further agrees with the Government’s decision not to opt out of proposals on the establishment, operation and use of the Schengen Information System in the field of police cooperation and judicial cooperation in criminal matters.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

Motion made,
That the Motion in the name of Andrea Leadsom relating to the Electoral Commission shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Object.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Rosie Winterton: With the leave of the House, I should like to take motions 6 to 12 together—

John Spellar: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I suggest that, while some of the motions might be unexceptionable, motions 9 and 10 might excite controversy and that it might therefore be better to take those together, with the others in a different grouping?

Rosie Winterton: In that case, I will take them all separately.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Constitutional Law

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Specification of Devolved Tax) (Wild Fisheries) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 14 September, be approved.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Government Resources and Accounts

That the draft Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000 (Audit of Public Bodies) Order 2017, which was laid before the House on 11 September, be approved.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Town and Country Planning

That the draft Town and Country Planning (Fees for Applications, Deemed Applications, Requests and Site Visits) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 19 October, be approved.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Local Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017, which were laid before this House on 13 November, be approved.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Local Government

That the draft Combined Authorities (Mayoral Elections) (Amendment) Order 2017, which was laid before this House on 13 November, be approved.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until Wednesday 20 December (Standing Order No. 41A).
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Environmental Protection (Microbeads) (England) Regulations 2017, which was laid before this House on 27 November, be approved.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Assistance to Industry

That this House authorises the Secretary of State to undertake to pay, and to pay by way of financial assistance under section 8 of the Industrial Development Act 1982, compensation to eligible energy intensive industries in respect of a proportion of the indirect costs of funding the Renewable Obligation (RO) and small-scale Feed In Tariffs (FIT) totalling more than £30 million and up to a cumulative total of £565 million maximum.—( Chris Heaton-Harris.)
Question agreed to.

PETITION - WASTE INCINERATORS IN SOWERBY BRIDGE

Holly Lynch: I rise to present a petition opposing the proposed waste incinerators in my constituency, which has been signed by 148 people in addition to the 246 people who have signed the petition online.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of Sowerby Bridge,
Declares that Calder Valley Skip Hire Ltd have submitted an application for an Environmental Permit for an incinerator at their site at Mearclough Road; further to planning applications for another incinerator at their Belmont site at the other end of Sowerby Bridge; further resulting in increased levels of air pollution affecting a number of schools in the local area; further to causing more pollution in Air Quality Management Areas; further that traffic congestion would worsen as lorries bring waste to the site; and further to the site having recently flooded any future development could result in waste entering the river.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to take all possible measures to prevent these waste incinerators being placed in the Sowerby Bridge area.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P002092]

Roadchef Employees Benefit Trust

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Chris Heaton-Harris.)

Neil Gray: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate this evening and I thank the hon. Members from across the House who have so far agreed to stay back to listen and perhaps contribute to the debate. What I am looking to discuss this evening can be boiled down to basic fairness and people getting access to what is rightfully theirs. I think it is important to set out some context to where we are today, before I come to the main points that I hope the Minister might be able to help with.
In 1986, the Roadchef employees benefit trust was established to give employees at Roadchef motorway services, such as those at Harthill in my constituency, Watford Gap, Hamilton or dozens of other locations across these isles, access to a John-Lewis-style employee-ownership scheme, whereby they would benefit from increasing share entitlements based on length of service. It was established honourably by the then chief executive Patrick Gee in consultation and with the support of the GMB union. Sadly and tragically, Patrick Gee died aged 43 before the scheme could be fully realised and Tim Ingram Hill took over. He then transferred the shares that Mr Gee was making available to employees into a second employee benefit scheme, of which he was the only beneficiary.
When Roadchef was subsequently sold to the Japanese company Nikko about a decade later, Mr Ingram Hill made approaching £30 million on the shares that should have been made available to Roadchef employees. In 2000, he made a tax payment on his ill-gotten share windfall to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to the tune of approximately £10 million, something which was only to come to light further down the line. On discovering the unjust enrichment, the trust then took Mr Ingram Hill to the High Court, and Justice Proudman found that he had acted in breach of trust and, crucially, that the shares were never his in the first place—they were the employees’ shares. The purchase of the shares in the sale of the company was therefore void and—this is important—the £10 million paid to HMRC also belonged to the beneficiaries, not Mr Ingram Hill.
Subsequent to the High Court ruling, Mr Ingram Hill settled with the trust, thus ending our interest in him for the purposes of this debate, but the trust then notified HMRC of the fact that the settlement had occurred and that it now intended to pay out to its beneficiaries, who total some 4,000 current and former Roadchef employees. The trust also wished to clarify that there would be no tax implications from the payments being made, thinking that that would just be a formality, but the response from HMRC was rather surprising. HMRC said that it would be happy to waive any tax implications for the beneficiaries as long as the trust did not pursue it for the £10 million paid in tax by Mr Ingram Hill. That was the first time that the trust had been made aware of such a tax payment. In accordance with any trustees acting on behalf of beneficiaries, the trust has challenged HMRC on the £10 million payment, which should be repaid to the trust with interest. That brings us up to date on this complex and unique case.
I am grateful to the chairman of the trust, Christopher Winston Smith, and to Huw Edwards for their insight ahead of this debate, and to the current CEO of Roadchef, Simon Turl, who I spoke to last night. Roadchef wants the issue settled for its current and former employees and has been working constructively with HMRC to that end. The trust has also worked with a number of hon. Members from across the House to raise the matter with HMRC, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Martyn Day) and the hon. Members for Newport East (Jessica Morden), for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Paul Farrelly), for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), for Dudley North (Ian Austin) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
My constituents certainly want this issue settled. Twenty constituents, most of whom live around the service station at Harthill, have contacted me about the matter, but I am sure that more are waiting for their payment. They include Mrs Margaret Gibson, who lists some of the things that she has struggled to do in recent years that this money would have helped with, including borrowing money for home improvements, helping her son to pay for his wedding, or helping her and her husband get by during periods of unemployment. She considers it a ridiculous amount of time to wait for what is rightfully hers, and I completely agree.

Patricia Gibson: My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that what adds insult to injury here is that, as well as being deprived of the payments, many of the people concerned are also working on quite low pay?

Neil Gray: Absolutely. I believe that the main thrust behind Mr Gee’s setting up of the trust in the first place was to ensure that low-paid staff were able to benefit from the company doing well. That has sadly not happened yet, and many low-paid workers have suffered as a result. Many of my constituents—I will list some shortly—have suffered and continue to suffer as a result of the payments not being made, so my hon. Friend is absolutely right.
Linda McLeod and Margaret Main pointed to the time it has taken for their money to be returned, but they also highlighted the number of former colleagues who have sadly passed away and will not get the benefit their hard work merited. Caroline Todd contacted me on behalf of her mother, Mrs Quigley from Harthill. She desperately hopes this gets resolved soon so that her mum, who is getting older, is able to enjoy her own money. Margaret Forsyth just wants HMRC to settle matters so that she can have some security, a sentiment echoed by Jane Paxton and Elizabeth Campbell.
Joyce Simm’s husband has been receiving treatment for small-cell carcinoma for three years, and she has been out of work while she cares for him. They have had to survive on pensions and savings, which are fast disappearing. They have now been hit with the sad news that he has a carcinoid tumour and will be undergoing surgery on 21 December. I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing the family well, but clearly any pay-out now would be particularly beneficial.
Another constituent of mine visited my surgery. He is seriously ill and in a difficult financial situation, and the money he is entitled to get back would simply be  life-changing and would help him immensely. He is desperate to see HMRC settle as soon as possible. I know many other hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House will have constituents who are affected and, sadly, will be able to share similar stories. Indeed, I understand Mr Speaker has constituents who are affected by this issue.
It is worth mentioning someone else who has been affected by this case. The former company secretary at Roadchef, Tim Warwick, blew the whistle on what the then chief executive was doing before there was any kind of whistleblower protection. Exposing this affair effectively ended Mr Warwick’s career, and we should all thank and pay tribute to him for his efforts.
What can the Minister do to help my constituents and their 4,000 colleagues across these isles who are waiting for their money? I understand that HMRC is a non-ministerial department of Government and that the Minister is therefore somewhat restricted in what he can do, but I hope he can join me and colleagues on both sides of the House in calling on HMRC to settle this case with the trustees and to return the £10 million, plus interest, to the rightful owners—the trustees and beneficiaries.

Peter Grant: My hon. Friend is giving a moving account of how the wrongdoing of one person, compounded by the inaction of HMRC, is causing real misery to a lot of people. Does he see a contrast with HMRC’s generosity when it comes to settling deals with big multinationals that have been caught avoiding tax through barely legal, and sometimes non-legal, methods? Would it be fair to say that his constituents must now think HMRC applies one law to the rich and another very different law to the poor?

Neil Gray: My hon. Friend makes a fair point, and I draw the House’s attention to his professional background and expertise in this area. He makes a valid point to which I am sure the Minister has listened.
If HMRC does not settle the case, it will stand accused of laundering illegally obtained funds at the expense of those who have been defrauded. I understand from correspondence that HMRC is concerned about setting a precedent in this case. As far as I can tell, this is the only EBT fraud case that involves a tax payment made in error, so I am not sure what exactly the precedent would be. But even if it were not the only such case, returning the money to its rightful owner would be a pretty good precedent to set.
Will the Minister advise the House on whether today was the first time he was made aware of the £10 million that was wrongly paid in tax? I say that because, to date, as far as I can see, the £10 million figure has not been mentioned in all the correspondence between Members of this House, Ministers and HMRC. At best, it would appear that officials are failing to apprise MPs of the full facts, which is a very serious matter indeed.
HMRC might also have briefed the Minister to say that this case is time barred, which of course will not be the case until the two-year anniversary of the High Court ruling comes round early next year. Unfortunately the right hon. Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan), the Chair of the Treasury Committee, is not in her place, but I hope she takes note of what I have presented to the House today, as I believe there is a role for her to play in getting the lead officials at HMRC to answer for  the delay. I will be writing to her, as the Chair of the Select Committee, in the new year to get her to look at ministerial guidance to HMRC on unjust enrichment and to get this issue scrutinised in more detail.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the issues I have raised this evening on behalf of not just my constituents, but constituents from across these isles. Some 4,000 low-paid workers have been denied what is rightfully theirs, first by the breach of trust by their former boss and now by HMRC. I hope the Minister will agree to meet me and the chair of the trust, Mr Winston Smith, so that we can all work together to finally see justice for current and former employees of Roadchef. This is about natural justice, and it is not good enough for HMRC to say that it is too difficult or that it is precedent setting, or to give any of the other excuses offered so far. This is not HMRC’s money. It is my constituents’ money—it is our constituents’ money—and it should be returned to them without delay.

Mel Stride: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Neil Gray) for having raised this issue and secured this debate. I congratulate him also on the vociferous energy with which he has pursued these important matters—the Government recognise their importance. I appreciate that this matter is a source of long-standing concern for those affected, and I can fully understand that they would want a resolution soon. I assure the House that HMRC is working hard towards resolving this issue. As the hon. Gentleman has recognised, I am of course constrained by HMRC’s duty of maintaining taxpayer confidentiality, so my remarks on the case will, of necessity, be limited to matters already in the public domain. HMRC will, however, continue to correspond in writing with the trustee chairman and assist the employee benefit trust’s representatives.
It may be helpful if I first set out the typical tax treatment for the sale of shares from EBTs. When a person exercises an option to obtain EBT shares, this is often chargeable to income tax and national insurance contributions, based on the difference between their valuation when they are obtained and the amount paid for them. If the shares are sold to a third party, the sale will then be subject to capital gains tax on the difference between the valuation used for the taxation of the option and the sale prices.
Turning to the Roadchef EBT, as we have heard, the issue we are discussing today has a long history. Before the sale of Roadchef in 1998, the company’s then chairman arranged for shares held by the EBT to be transferred to him. He subsequently sold the shares for a profit. Both the acquisition and sale were taxed appropriately at that time. The former chairman’s actions were contested, and in 2014 the High Court ruled that effectively the moneys from the sale of shares had to be paid back, net of tax, to the trust for distribution to its beneficiaries. The judgment stated that the proceeds from the shares sold had been held on constructive trust by the chairman for the beneficiaries. However, the implementation of the High Court’s ruling in 2014 and the subsequent distribution of the original shareholders has proved to be very complex.
HMRC has since been engaging with the Roadchef employment benefit trustees’ representatives to determine the correct tax treatment for the trust and the relevant  distributions to its beneficiaries. This involves HMRC working closely with the trust’s representatives to fully explore all potential legal options to settle this matter. HMRC’s most senior technical people have been working on different aspects of the tax position, and a senior HMRC representative is regularly discussing the progress of the case with the trust’s representative. Several media outlets have also reported how earlier this year HMRC provided a technical analysis of its view of the correct tax treatment to the trustee chairman and its representatives. To be clear, HMRC has no interest in prolonging this matter. It is, however, legally bound to be even-handed and impartial in applying the law.

Neil Gray: Can the Minister understand my concern at HMRC’s approach to this? When the trust was first made aware of the £10 million tax payment, HMRC apparently told the trust that the beneficiaries would not have to pay any tax on any pay-out that is made as long as the trust does not pursue HMRC for the £10 million. I think he can understand why that is a little concerning.

Mel Stride: The hon. Gentleman has raised a specific set of suggestions in the context of the dialogue between HMRC and the trust, and that very much strays into the area of confidentiality around discussions between our tax authority and a particular organisation. It would therefore not be right for me to comment on that. Indeed, in the normal course of events, I would not even be aware of such matters—certainly not from an HMRC perspective.

Neil Gray: I thank the Minister and understand the constraints he is under, which is why I hope he might agree to meet me and the trust to try to find a way through this. I hope he will agree to do that sometime early in the new year.

Mel Stride: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his invitation, which he also extended in his speech. I am certainly prepared to consider meeting him and potentially others, although I would like to take advice on whether that would be entirely appropriate, given the situation. I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman could explain more fully the exact nature of such a meeting, including who would be present and so on. In no way am I seeking to be unhelpful—quite the opposite—but I am conscious of the clear line that there must always be between members of the Government, MPs and, indeed, other members of the public, and the tax affairs that pertain between our tax authority and another organisation or business.
HMRC has a taxpayer confidentiality obligation, so I cannot comment in more detail on the specific tax treatment of the case. I can, however, assure the House that HMRC is doing everything that it can to resolve this issue promptly and fairly, while ensuring that the tax is paid appropriately in respect of the sale and distribution of the shares. Although HMRC has discretion as to how it goes about fulfilling its duties, as a statutory body it must of course apply the law fairly and collect the taxes set out in legislation by Parliament. When the law is unclear, HMRC can exercise some discretion to ensure that it gives effect to Parliament’s intent. For example, HMRC can exercise discretion to give up some tax if there is an unintended or unforeseen effect that affects only a small group of taxpayers or will be  apparent only for a short time. I should note, though, that that discretion is by its nature limited and would not be applicable in all circumstances—for instance, it would not apply if the courts had made a specific ruling on a particular issue.
In summary, I thank the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts again for securing this debate and for the tenacity with which he has pursued these matters on behalf of his constituents and those of other Members.  As I have said, I can appreciate the frustration of those affected, who naturally want a swift end to this matter, which I hope there will be. I hope I have been able to provide at least some reassurance that HMRC is doing everything in its power to resolve this issue in a fair and timely manner.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.